Jones v. Missouri Department of Mental Health et al

LEAH JONES,
Plaintiff,
V.
LEROY NICHOLSON,
Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:25-cv-158-ACL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed case is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Leah Jones' motion to
reopen case and motion for leave to file second amended complaint. 1 ECF Nos. 16, 17. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions.
Plaintiffs case was dismissed for failure to state a claim on June 4, 2026. ECF No. 14. In
the dismissal, the Court first noted that Plaintiffs attempt to pursue her union representative
failed as an individual cannot be pursued for Title VII liability. Id. at 5. The Court further
determined that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against her employer for racial
discrimination or retaliation as her complaint lacked facts relating to several elements. Id. at 5.:6.
Finally, the Court found Plaintiff alleged no facts regarding the issue of age discrimination, and
in fact offered the Court a non-discriminatory reason why she was not allowed to return to work
- a personal dispute between her union representative and management. Id. at 6- 7.
Plaintiffs motions attempt to rectify some of these issues but is ultimately unsuccessful.
Plaintiff requests to file a new complaint which alleges age discrimination and drops the racial
discrimination allegation entirely. "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a condition
1 This would in fact be the third amended complaint.
Case: 1:25-cv-00158-ACL Doc. #: 18 Filed: 06/26/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

preceden~ to the filing of an action under the ADEA in_federal court." Shelton v. Boeing Co., 399
F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir. 2005). To assert an ADEA claim, the plaintiff must first file a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within -180 days -·
after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet-
Wilmington Corp., 894 F .3d 911, 919 (8th Cir. 2018). This requirement provides the EEOC with
I 	••
an initial opportunity to investigate allegations of employment discrimination and work with the
parties toward voluntary compliance. Shelton, 3,99 F.3d at 912. "The proper exhaustion of
administrative remedies gives the plaintiff a green light to bring her employment-discrimination
claim, along with allegations that are like or reasonably related to that claim, in federal court."
Shannon v Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 684 (8th Cir. 1996).
Unfortunately, Plaintiff's EEOC Charge of Discrimination relates only to her alleged
racial discrimination. ECF No. 17-2 at 15. Plaintiff states that she alleged age discrimination in
her Charge of Discrimination. ECF No. 17 at 5. This assertion is untrue. The document at issue
contains no mention of age discrimination. See ECF No. 17-2 at 15. Thus, replacing the race
discrimination claim with the age disprimination claim does not help save her case, as Plaintiff
has provided no evidence that she has administratively exhausted her age discrimination claim.
Plaintiff also tries to bolster her claim of retaliation. To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation under the ADEA, Plaintiff must show that "(1) [s]he participated in a protected
activity, (2) an adverse employment action-was taken against [her]; and (3) a causal connection
exists between the two events." Kneibert v. Thomson Newspapers, Michigan Inc. 129 F.3d 444,
454 (8th Cir. 1997). An adverse employment action is "a tangible change in working conditions
that produces a material employment disadvantage." Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d
661, 671 (8th Cir. 2006).
2
Case: 1:25-cv-00158-ACL Doc. #: 18 Filed: 06/26/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Plaintiff states she "experienced retaliatory actions, including increased scrutiny,
exclusion from communications, and interference with Plaintiffs ability to perform job duties."
Id. at 4. These allegations are broad and vague and do not show a tangible change in working
conditions that produces a disadvantage. The only specific allegation she relates is that she
believes her union representative accessed her personal T-Mobile account. Id. She does not
connect this action with her employer, the Missouri Department of Mental Health. Nor does she
state what this access entailed, what harm was done by this access, or how this materially
affected her working conditions or employment opportunities. Id.
Plaintiff has already been provided multiple chances by this Court to amend her
complaint before the dismissal. Nothing in the Motions before the Court cure the defects listed in
the dismissal order, and even the proposed third amended complaint would not survive initial
review.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reopen case (ECF No. 16) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended
complaint (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
Dated this 26 th day of June, 2026.
....
,,OO~A·STEPHEN N. LIMBAU~
1
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Case: 1:25-cv-00158-ACL Doc. #: 18 Filed: 06/26/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>