Lovelace v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.

Background

Tiwanda Lovelace sued her former employer, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., alleging discrimination and termination based on race, color, sex, age, and disability. She filed an administrative charge with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, which was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued her a notice of right to sue on February 3, 2023, and she received it on February 10, 2023.

Lovelace filed an earlier lawsuit in the District of Utah on May 4, 2023. That court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Lovelace filed this action on November 3, 2023. Ameriprise moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time-barred. Lovelace also moved to amend her complaint to add claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She also moved to change venue to Minnesota, but the case was already pending in the District of Minnesota.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to plausibly support a legal claim. The court also recognized that complaints filed without a lawyer are read under less demanding pleading standards, although they still must allege facts rather than only unsupported legal conclusions.

For a Title VII claim, a person generally must receive a right-to-sue notice and file suit within 90 days. The court calculated that Lovelace had until May 11, 2023, to file. It held that the earlier Utah lawsuit did not pause or extend that deadline because the Utah case was dismissed without prejudice. Because Lovelace filed this case after May 11, 2023, the court held that her Title VII claims concerning age, race, and disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation were time-barred.

Lovelace argued that the deadline should be extended because Ameriprise had misrepresented facts in the Utah case and because discrimination and litigation-related conduct caused serious emotional and financial harm that made it difficult for her to litigate. The court declined to review the Utah court’s personal-jurisdiction decision and found no extraordinary circumstance supporting equitable tolling, which is a limited doctrine that can extend a filing deadline.

The court separately held that Lovelace had not exhausted administrative remedies for her Title VII sex-discrimination claim. Her administrative charge did not allege facts about sex discrimination, so the court dismissed that claim for failure to exhaust.

Motion to Amend

Because more than 21 days had passed after Ameriprise served its motion to dismiss, Lovelace needed Ameriprise’s written consent or the court’s permission to amend. The court could deny amendment for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. The court also stated that proposed Americans with Disabilities Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims were untimely because those laws require suit within 90 days after receipt of the right-to-sue notice.

Section 1981 Claims

The court denied amendment to add a Section 1981 race-discrimination claim because the proposed amendment would be futile. Lovelace relied on an October 2020 email and alleged that she was treated disrespectfully because she was a Black woman. The court held that the 17-month gap between the email and her March 2022 termination was too long to support an inference of causation, and that the other allegations were conclusory because they did not identify specific discriminatory conduct.

The court allowed amendment to add a Section 1981 retaliation claim. Lovelace alleged that she complained about race discrimination multiple times around March 2022, that her complaints were ignored, and that she was terminated within days or weeks. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to support protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a possible causal connection.

The court also allowed amendment to add a Section 1981 failure-to-promote claim. Lovelace alleged that she was passed over for promotion in favor of a white coworker who lacked her education and call-center experience. Although the timing was unclear, the court found the allegations sufficient at this stage. The court noted that Lovelace would eventually need evidence that she was qualified, applied for the position, and satisfied the other elements of the claim.

Family and Medical Leave Act Claims

The court denied amendment to add a Family and Medical Leave Act discrimination claim. Lovelace alleged that she took leave from June 21 through June 30, 2021, and intermittent leave from June through October 2021, and that she was terminated in March 2022. The court held that the nine-month gap between the employer’s knowledge of the leave and the termination was too long, without more, to show a causal connection. The court also held that comments about her leave, faulty equipment, and sitting near her supervisor did not amount to an adverse employment action.

The court allowed amendment to add a Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. Lovelace alleged that she reported what she believed was unlawful discrimination related to her leave, that she took medical leave when she had COVID-19, that money was incorrectly taken from her paycheck, and that she was terminated shortly after raising these concerns. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at this stage.

Disposition

The court granted Ameriprise’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Lovelace’s Title VII claims with prejudice. It denied her motion to change venue as moot. It granted in part and denied in part her motion to amend, allowing only three claims in an amended complaint: retaliation under Section 1981, failure to promote under Section 1981, and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court ordered that no additional claims could be included without permission from the court. It also stated that it would again refer Lovelace to the Pro Se Project.