Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanders v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

September 26, 2016

Eric Alan Sanders, Plaintiff,
v.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC; EEOC of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; Rayvon Irby, Defendants.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         Plaintiff Eric Alan Sanders (“Sanders” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action pro se against Defendants Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe's”); the EEOC of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; and Rayvon Irby alleging that he was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e17, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff also alleges claims for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for violation of South Carolina statutory law. (ECF No. 16.)

         This matter is before the court pursuant to a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett.[1] On September 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court dismiss Defendant EEOC of Charlotte, NC (“EEOC”) from the matter “without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which Objections are presently before the court. (ECF No. 33.) For the reasons set forth below, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and DISMISSES the EEOC from this matter.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER

         On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this action alleging as follows:

I am also joining as a party the EEOC of Charlotte, NC - a “public entity” as defined by § 35.104 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations (42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. Part 35); furthermore, the EEOC of Charlotte, NC is a “labor organization” according to Section 1-13-30(g) of the South Carolina Human Affairs Law.
I am charging the EEOC of Charlotte, NC with intentional and malicious professional negligence/discrimination/retaliation/interference/coercion including, but not limited; refusal to properly investigate these charges, refusal to acknowledge my charge in writing in a timely manner; failing/refusal to file for temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition of the charge to protect me from irreparable emotional, refusal to produce a right to sue letter with sufficient detail to proceed in District Court and establish proper jurisdiction; intentionally failing to provide any form of technical assistance in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 12206 (Section 507) c(1), § 35.130(a) and § 35.134(a)-(b) of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
I am alleging that the EEOC of Charlotte, NC violated these laws primarily due to the nature of my disabilities (mental) and for complaining, in the past, regarding the negligence of EEOC employees in handling two previous charges.
I am alleging that I, a qualified individual with a disability, by reason of such disability, was excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of the services, programs, activities, of the EEOC of Charlotte, NC a public entity and a labor organization, and was subjected to discrimination by the subject entity in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and Section 1-13-80(B) and (C)(1) of the South Carolina Human Affairs Law.

(ECF No. 16 at 8 ¶ 39-9 ¶ 42.)

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., the Magistrate Judge reviewed the allegations against the EEOC and issued the aforementioned Report and Recommendation on September 21, 2015. (ECF No. 26.) On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 33.)

         II. JURISDICTION

         This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Title VII claim via 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it arises under a law of the United States, and also via 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), which empowers district courts to hear claims “brought under” Title VII. Additionally, the court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim via 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the claim arises under a law of the United States, and also via 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117 & 2000e-5(f)(3), which empower district courts to hear claims by “person[s] alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.” The court may properly hear Plaintiff's state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction since they are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that . . . it form[s] part of the same case or controversy . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. The Magistrate Judge's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.