UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNETTA DAGGETT,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-CV-13368

vs. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

PATRICK DONAHUE,

Postmaster General,

Defendant.

______________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

This matter is presently before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss certain

claims [docket entry 18]. Plaintiff has filed a response. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the

Court shall decide this motion without a hearing.

This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, who is African American,

alleges that she was discharged from her job as a mail processor after filing a complaint with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding allegedly unfair treatment by a

white supervisor, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She apparently intends to

assert claims for 

Racial Discrimination, Retaliation, Hostile Work Environment,

Denial of Due Process, Violations in Collective Bargaining

Agreement, Disparate Treatment, Failure to Follow Policies and

Procedures, Inconsistent Reasoning, Failure to Investigate Internal

Complaint/Remedy, Misinformation about EEOC process, Issuing a

Biased Final Agency Decision, Delaying Justice, Wrongful

Termination, Defamation, Harassment, Due to my protected activity.

Compl. at 1. For relief, plaintiff seeks reinstatement, back pay, $1.5 million in compensatory

damages, $1.5 million in punitive damages, and “injunctive relief.”

2:14-cv-13368-BAF-APP Doc # 22 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 110
Defendant seeks dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims, except her claim for retaliation,

for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6). Defendant notes that plaintiff asserted only a retaliation claim in her EEOC complaint

and argues that she has therefore not exhausted her administrative remedies as to any other

employment-related claims. Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s defamation claim is barred by the

Federal Tort Claims Act, which specifically exempts this tort, and that her remaining claims are not

sufficiently alleged under the pleading standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Plaintiff’s one-paragraph response to defendant’s motion is that 

[i]n December 2012 I filed a retaliation claim against the agency

because I had a pending EEOC case. For that reason my claim should

have been taken serious. I participated in mediation for both cases.

It became clear from the beginning that no one in the agency wanted

to listen or investigate my claim. I was treated differently for

complaining. Because I am pro se I do not want to be a burden to the

court and I want a resolution but I also want Justice for the way I was

treated. I am asking the court to not dismiss the Hostile Work

Environment, Disparate Treatment, Harassment and Racial

Discrimination Claims.

Pl.’s Resp. at 3. 

Plaintiff has not addressed any of the arguments raised in defendant’s motion. 

Although pro se complaints are treated more leniently than those drafted by lawyers, see, e.g.,

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), all litigants must still follow the applicable court rules. See

Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339 (6th Cir.1988); Evans v. Mercedes Benz Fin. Servs., LLC, 2011

WL 2936198, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2011) (“a pro se plaintiff must comply with basic pleading

requirements . . . [m]eaning, a plaintiff still must allege a set of facts that would establish the

material elements of a claim”). 

2

2:14-cv-13368-BAF-APP Doc # 22 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 111
By failing to respond to defendant’s arguments, plaintiff concedes that there is no

response to be made. The Court has independently reviewed the complaint and finds merit in all of

defendant’s arguments. Plaintiff’s employment-related claims for hostile work environment,

disparate treatment, harassment, and race discrimination are barred because they were not first

presented to the EEOC. The defamation claim is barred by sovereign immunity. And all claims,

except the retaliation claim that was presented to the EEOC, fail because they are not sufficiently

alleged under Iqbal and Twombly. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion for partial dismissal is granted. All of

plaintiff’s claims are dismissed except her claim that defendant retaliated against her for filing an

EEOC complaint.

Dated: March 3, 2015 s/Bernard A. Friedman 

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on March 3,

2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

s/Michael Williams 

Substitute Case Manager

For Senior U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman 

3

2:14-cv-13368-BAF-APP Doc # 22 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 112