Soltis v. MHC Culinary Group LLC

Background

Christina M. Soltis alleged that she worked for MHC Culinary Group, LLC, as a sous-chef from September 2011 until her resignation in 2022. She alleged that MHC passed her over for executive-chef and executive-sous-chef positions, selecting men instead. She also alleged that a human-resources representative said, “something will come along when your kids get older.”

Soltis filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in October 2021. The charge marked discrimination based on “sex” but did not mark retaliation or describe retaliation, familial-status discrimination, her children, or her status as a mother. She later alleged that MHC failed to hold planned mentoring meetings and transferred her to another facility, which she characterized as retaliation or reprisal. She filed this lawsuit on January 30, 2024, asserting six counts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

MHC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The motion challenged Counts 3 through 6: Title VII retaliation, Minnesota Human Rights Act reprisal, Minnesota Human Rights Act familial-status discrimination, and the § 1981 claim.

Title VII Retaliation

The court dismissed Count 3 because Soltis had not exhausted her administrative remedies. Before bringing a Title VII claim, a plaintiff generally must give the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice of the claim through an administrative charge. The court explained that a retaliation claim must be separately alleged and is not automatically related to an underlying discrimination claim.

Soltis’s charge alleged only sex discrimination. It did not check the retaliation box or state facts suggesting that MHC retaliated against her for opposing discrimination. The court rejected Soltis’s argument that the charge and other documents gave sufficient notice of retaliation. Count 3 was dismissed.

Minnesota Human Rights Act Claims

The court dismissed Counts 4 and 6 as untimely. The Minnesota Human Rights Act generally requires an unfair-discrimination claim to be filed in court or charged with a commission within one year after the alleged practice occurred.

For familial-status discrimination, Soltis identified the later promotion decision as occurring on October 5, 2021. The court concluded that the one-year period ended October 5, 2022, but Soltis did not file this lawsuit until January 30, 2024. The court also found that her administrative charge did not preserve a familial-status claim because it did not mention her status as a mother, her children, childcare obligations, or similar facts.

For reprisal, Soltis appeared to identify the missed human-resources meetings and her April 2022 transfer as the retaliatory acts. The court treated the transfer as the later event, making April 2023 the one-year deadline. Because Soltis filed suit in January 2024, the court dismissed the reprisal claim as untimely. The court also noted that her administrative charge did not describe or suggest reprisal.

42 U.S.C. § 1981 Claim

The court dismissed Count 5. Section 1981 protects equal legal rights and, as relevant here, supports claims of race discrimination. The court held that sex discrimination in employment is not actionable under § 1981. Soltis agreed that her sex-discrimination claim could not proceed under that statute.

Disposition

The court explained that the exhaustion and statute-of-limitations problems warranted dismissal with prejudice because they could not be cured through amendment on the record before it. Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted MHC’s partial motion to dismiss with prejudice and dismissed Counts 3 through 6 with prejudice. The order did not dismiss Counts 1 and 2.