Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06053/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Colorado Grill
Defendant
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff
ISSA Enterprises, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-6053

ISSA ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a

COLORADO GRILL DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 6th day of February, comes on for consideration

defendant's Motion To Dismiss (document #5), and from said motion,

and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. In this Title VII case, plaintiff alleges that defendant

sexually harassed several female employees, and then retaliated

against those employees by terminating them when they complained

of the harassment. 

Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that it did not have

the requisite number of employees for the requisite time period to

bring it within the purview of Title VII. While no brief

accompanied the motion, it was supported by an exhibit purporting

to show the number of employees at various time periods.

2. Plaintiff responded with its own exhibits purporting to

show that defendant did have the requisite number of employees,

but pointed out that -- as of that time -- no discovery had been

conducted and initial disclosures had not yet been made.

Plaintiff suggested that if the Court were to consider the various

documents attached to the motion and the response, the motion

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

would have to be converted to a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff also pointed out defendant's failure to comply with

Local Rule 7.2(e), which provides that "motions to dismiss, shall

not be taken up and considered unless set forth in a separate

pleading accompanied by a separate brief."

3. Turning first to the last of these points, the Court

notes that the pending motion was set forth in a separate

pleading, and that, although the brief was not set out separately

from the motion, the motion did cite the particular narrow legal

authority upon which it relies. The Court, therefore, will not

decline to consider the motion for failure to comply with Local

Rule 7.2(e).

4. The term "employer" is defined, for Title VII purposes,

as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has

fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty

or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year."

42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). This threshold number is "an element of

plaintiff's claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue."

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). 

The Complaint alleges, at paragraph 3, that "[a]t all

relevant times, Defendant . . . has continuously had at least

fifteen (15) employees." Thus dismissal for failure to state a

claim, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b) would not be proper. The Court

has considered whether it would be appropriate to convert the

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

pending motion to one for summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P.

12(b), and finds it would not. No discovery has been had, and

initial disclosures -- which were to be made by January 5, 2007,

pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order -- had not been made when

the motion and response thereto were filed. The Court believes

the better course of action is to deny the motion at this time,

without prejudice to its renewal when sufficient discovery has

taken place to allow the parties to present admissible evidence in

support thereof.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion To Dismiss

(document #5) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>