Dyer v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

Background

Letitia Dyer was employed by R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company in Chanhassen, Minnesota. She filed a 90-page Second Amended Complaint asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and Minnesota law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleged discrimination based on race, color, gender, national origin, disability, and age, as well as unequal pay and workplace harassment.

The court had previously granted in part R.R. Donnelley’s first motion to dismiss and directed Dyer to replead some claims. Dyer filed the Second Amended Complaint eight days after the court-ordered deadline. Although the court stated that it could dismiss the complaint for that reason, it considered the pleading on its merits because Dyer was representing herself.

Equal Pay Act

The Equal Pay Act requires a plaintiff to allege that she was paid less than a male employee for equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Dyer alleged that she was the lowest-paid person in the customer-service department and that she outperformed several coworkers. But she did not identify a particular male employee with the same qualifications who performed the same job and was paid more.

The court also held that the Equal Pay Act concerns sex-based differences in pay, not whether coworkers were white or whether working conditions were harsh. The court dismissed this claim without prejudice.

Minnesota Human Rights Act

The court held that Dyer’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claims were untimely. The Minnesota Human Rights Act generally required her to bring a civil action within 45 days after receiving notice that the state commissioner had dismissed a charge. Even accounting for the legislatively extended limitations period during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court concluded that the deadline expired on May 31, 2021. Dyer did not assert a Minnesota Human Rights Act claim until August 24, 2021.

The court also noted that some allegations concerned events not covered by either of Dyer’s administrative charges. It dismissed the Minnesota Human Rights Act claims with prejudice.

Title VII

Title VII generally requires a person claiming employment discrimination to file an administrative charge before filing suit. Only conduct within the applicable period and claims that grow out of or are reasonably related to the charge may ordinarily be pursued in court.

The court had previously ruled that Dyer could not base Title VII claims on conduct occurring before May 15, 2019. The court identified only three potentially timely allegations connected to her first charge: a May 13, 2019 performance review, the movement of another employee from Dyer’s cubicle area on May 16, 2019, and an allegedly discriminatory job assignment during the week of May 16, 2019. Other allegations were either outside the periods covered by her administrative charges or concerned gender discrimination that her first charge did not identify. The court also concluded that Dyer again failed to connect the alleged actions to her age.

Dyer appeared to assert a hostile-work-environment claim. The court explained that such a claim requires harassment based on a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to change the conditions of employment and create an abusive workplace. The court found that Dyer’s allegations, even if true, were not objectively serious enough. It also found that, apart from alleging that she was the only Black employee in her department, she did not allege facts plausibly showing that the conduct was based on race, color, or national origin. The court concluded that her Title VII claims for discrimination, retaliation, and harassment failed and dismissed them with prejudice.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Under Minnesota law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct and distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. The court concluded that Dyer’s allegations of anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and related physical symptoms did not meet those requirements. It dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted R.R. Donnelley’s second motion to dismiss. The order dismissed Dyer’s Equal Pay Act claims without prejudice and dismissed her remaining claims with prejudice. The court ordered judgment entered accordingly.