Quantcast

Aarons Inc. not completely off the hook in discrimination case filed by ex-employee

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Aarons Inc. not completely off the hook in discrimination case filed by ex-employee

File000704919536

ST. LOUIS – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has partially dismissed discrimination claims filed by a former employee of a lease-to-own rental company.

Judge Audrey G. Fleissig ruled May 23 on defendants Aarons Inc. and Fred Royal’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff Gary Wayne Hernton’s first amended complaint. It granted Royal’s motion and granted Aarons Inc.’s motion in part.

Hernton filed a complaint May 2017 over allegations he was discriminated against because of his race, age and color, citing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act. He alleged he was wrongfully discharged.

In Royal’s motion to dismiss, he stated “an individual cannot be held personally liable on federal employment discrimination claims,” as well as the “plaintiff’s MHRA claims fails on its face because” Hernton didn’t make claims of discrimination within 180 days of the supposed incident, according to the opinion.

Aarons Inc. also filed a separate motion to dismiss and stated the Title VII and MHRA arguments aren’t valid because Hernton didn’t file them in a timely manner. It also states the plaintiff didn’t provide sufficient evidence that he was fired because of discrimination against his age, race or color.

Hernton insisted his lawsuit is timely because he filed within 300 days of being fired. The district court pointed out a Title VII complaint must be filed within 300 days of the alleged incident while a MHRA complaint has to be filed within 180 days. The district court also pointed out since Missouri is a deferral state, filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint can also be considered filing a MHRA claim.

Considering this, the district court decided the plaintiff’s complaint concerning Title VII is indeed timely. Still, the same didn’t hold true for the MHRA claims considering the 180-day timeframe. The district court in turn dismissed Hernton’s claims in relation to MHRA.

The district court also agreed with Royal’s argument that Title VII violations do not apply to individuals, but rather the actual employer. It dismissed the Title VII claims regarding Royal.

The court granted Hernton leave to file an amended complaint by June 4.

More News