United States District Court, W.D. New York
LISA M. ANSELM, Plaintiff,
DIAMOND PACKAGING, Defendant.
Lisa M. Anselm, pro se, Canandaigua, New York, for Plaintiff.
Katherine S. McClung, Esq., Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC, Rochester, New York, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, District Judge.
This is an action alleging employment discrimination, in the form of retaliation, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Now before the Court is Defendant's motion (Docket No. [#3]) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The application is granted and this action is dismissed.
According to the Complaint [#1] in this action, on April 22, 2010, Defendant hired Plaintiff as a Human Resources Generalist. In or about July 2012, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to the position of Human Resources Manager. In or about February, 2013, Plaintiff objected to firing certain employees because she believed that it would have been discriminatory to do so. Plaintiff also alleged that some female employees were being paid less than males for performing the same work. Additionally, Plaintiff questioned certain practices within the company, including accounting procedures, that she claims were illegal. Beginning in February or March of 2013, Plaintiff claims that she experienced acts of alleged retaliation. On April 30, 2013, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and on April 17, 2014, the EEOC issued her a "Right to Sue Letter." Assuming that Plaintiff received such notice three days later, Plaintiff had 90 days, or until July 19, 2014, to commence an action in federal court.
On July 15, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action, proceeding pro se. The Court observes that its Clerk's Office has a document entitled " Pro Se Guidelines" which is typically given to pro se litigants when they commence an action, and which is also available online at the Court's public website. Concerning service of the summons and complaint, and the time for such service, the Pro Se Guidelines states, in pertinent part:
Service of process is the actual delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant in your case. Service of process in federal court is governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You are responsible for having a summons and a copy of the complaint "served" upon each party to the lawsuit, and for returning proof of the service to the Court. The summons and complaint must be served within 120 days of filing the complaint or the case may be dismissed. A party who cannot complete service within 120 days must file a motion with the Clerk's Office asking the Court to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint. See Motions, pp. 11-14.
* * *
Professional process servers are listed in the telephone directory yellow pages and will serve a summons and complaint for a fee. Any other person who is at least 18 years of age and who is not a party to the lawsuit, such as an employee, family member or friend, may serve the summons and complaint, but they must be careful to follow the service procedures exactly or the case may be dismissed for improper service.
* * *
The procedures for serving process differ depending on whether the defendant is an individual within the United States (including territories), in a foreign country, under the age of 18 or incompetent, or is a corporation, the United States (or a government agency), or a foreign, state or local government. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(e) - (j). It is ...