Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. .._....~I“,~iih,,MHm.."_..—...__ __.i—."*..;..m.t... ;—~*....1_
I
{_ Case 3:03-cv—O1049—RNC Document 17 Filed O1/21/2005 Page 1 of 3 N
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT `'` `G`” `TQIE I I
: ZII55 JIIII 2I A II= 58
DENISE CORREA, : I
I ' : :·—.jif;_.I?`IQgIITI ITI'II.§€`¥I I
P1¤l¤¤ff» = 1 II, I
V. : CASE NO. 3:03-CV-1049 (RNC)
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER I
GENERAL, and RON DEMAIDA, : _
Defendants. I I
I
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an employee of the United States Postal Service, I
brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
I
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, against the Postmaster General, John E.

Potter, and Ron DeMaida, plaintiff’s former supervisor, claiming I
I
that DeMaida sexually harassed her and retaliated against her i
when she complained. She also asserts state law claims for
negligent supervision and negligent and intentional infliction of I
emotional distress. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—l6(c), the I
Postmaster General is the only proper defendant with regard to I
I
the Title VII claims. See DiPompo v. West Point Military Acad.,
708 F.Supp. 540, 546-47 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). He has moved to dismiss
those claims on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. See Briones v. Runyon, 101 F.3d 287, I
289-90 (2d Cir. 1996). The motion is supported by a sworn I

I

I

Case 3:03-cv—O1049—RNC Document 17 Filed O1/21/2005 Page 2 of 3 [
affidavit of Edward Tierney, manager and custodian of records for
the Postal Service’s Hartford office of Equal Employment j
Opportunity Dispute Resolution, which states that there is no é
record of plaintiff complying with the requirement that she
initiate EEO proceedings with regard to the events alleged in the
complaint. §eg 29 C.F.R. § l6l4.lO5(a)(l). The motion also
seeks dismissal of the state law claims on the ground that they
are preempted by Title VII. {
No memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss has
been filed. Under Local Civil Rule 7(a)l, “[f]ailure to submit a
memorandum-in opposition to a motion may be deemed sufficient
cause to grant the motion, except where the pleadings provide
sufficient grounds to deny the motion.” The complaint contains a j
conclusory allegation that plaintiff has “exhausted all rights of j
redress available under the . . . Postal Service’s Rules and E
Regulations.” Complaint, T 5. This unsworn allegation, viewed
in light of the Tierney affidavit, is insufficient to raise an
issue of fact concerning the exhaustion issue.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Title VII claims is
granted, and those claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice for j
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The j
federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to i
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, E
which are dismissed without prejudice. gge Harrison v. Potter, i
J

. {
Case 3:03-cv—O1049—RNC Document 17 Fnled O1/21/2005 Page 3 of 3 i
323 F.Supp.2d 593, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).l E
The Clerk may close the file. i
So ordered. ]
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 20th day of January
2005.
. A
U li Robert N. Chatignw n
United States District Judge
I
I
!
l
1 The Court ventures no opinion as to whether those claims
are or are not preempted.
3