Herrnson v. Hoffman

Background

Samuel Herrnson brought this action without a lawyer against Steven Hoffman, Mark Hoffman, and Hoffman Management. He alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, a federal law concerning age discrimination in employment. Although Hoffman Management was not listed as a defendant in the complaint, the court had construed the complaint as asserting claims against the company.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim. Their principal argument concerned a general release that the parties allegedly executed in 2018. The complaint did not mention the release.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

A court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion generally may consider the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice. When a party presents outside materials, the court must either exclude those materials or convert the motion into one for summary judgment. Before converting the motion, the court must provide sufficient notice and an opportunity for the nonmoving party to respond.

The court determined that the release was neither incorporated into nor integral to the complaint. The complaint contained no clear, definite, and substantial reference to the release, and the release did not relate to the substance of Herrnson’s discrimination claims. The court therefore concluded that it could not decide on a motion to dismiss whether the release governed the claims or whether Herrnson knowingly, willfully, and voluntarily waived his rights.

Other Arguments

The defendants also argued that Herrnson failed to complete required administrative steps and that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not permit individual liability or punitive or compensatory damages. The court stated that the administrative-exhaustion argument misstated the law: the Act does not require a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing suit. The plaintiff instead had to wait 60 days after filing his agency charge, which the court said Herrnson had done. The court noted that the individual-liability and damages argument applied only to the individual defendants and would not entirely dispose of the discrimination claim. The court deferred that argument to the converted summary-judgment motion.

Ruling

The court converted the defendants’ motion to dismiss into a targeted motion for summary judgment on the release issue. It allowed each party to submit additional affidavits, declarations, exhibits, and a letter addressing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed and whether additional discovery was needed. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal as a motion for summary judgment. Judge J. Paul Oetken also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket Number 18.