Ellis-Yancey v. Midwest Block & Brick/Quikrete Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FROSTIE ELLIS-YANCEY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 4:25-cv-00822-JMB
v. 	)
)
MIDWEST BLOCK & BRICK/ 	)
QUIKRETE COMPANY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This employment discrimination case is before the Court on initial review of
self-represented Plaintiff Frostie Ellis-Yancey’s complaint. Upon review, the Court
will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title VII for discrimination based on
race, color, and gender. The Court will issue service on Defendant Midwest Block
& 	Brick/Quikrete 	Company 	on 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	brought 	under 	the 	Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Complaints filed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner are subject to pre-
service review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	See Carter v. Schafer, 273
Fed. Appx. 581 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that “contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments on
appeal, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply to all persons proceeding IFP
and are not limited to prisoner suits, and the provisions allow dismissal without
Case: 4:25-cv-00822-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
service”). 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief” is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq, and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. On her form complaint, she states that she
was discriminated against because of her race, color, gender, and age. Doc. 1 at 5.
Named as Defendant is her former employer, Midwest Block & Brick/Quikrete
Company.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant for approximately 40 years. In May 2024, she
sought to move to Houston, Texas to be closer to her family. 	She applied for a
Case: 4:25-cv-00822-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
transfer to Defendant’s Houston office. She alleges she had a successful interview
on May 15, 2024, but Defendant did not hire her for the position. In both her EEOC
charge of discrimination and her complaint, she alleges this was because of her age,
which was 65 or 66 at the time.
Although she does not specifically state her requested relief, she states that
she is left “without health insurance until my Medicare eligibility kicks in and
without paychecks to cover my expenses.” 	Doc. 1 at 6. 	Liberally construed, she
seeks compensation for these alleged damages.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s claims in her complaint must be like or reasonably related to the
claims outlined in her administrative charge of discrimination or they are subject to
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g., Duncan v. Delta
Consol. Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2004). 	Although “an EEOC
complaint need not specifically articulate the precise claim, . . . [t]he EEOC charge
must provide information that would give the employer notice of the subject matter
of the charge and identify generally the basis for a claim.” Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic,
Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894, 899 (8th Cir. 2024) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). Therefore, a plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination in his or her
complaint “may be as broad as the scope of the EEOC investigation which
Case: 4:25-cv-00822-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
reasonably could be expected to result from the administrative charge.” 	Parisi v.
Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir. 2005).
Having reviewed the complaint, the charge of discrimination, and the notice
of right to sue from the EEOC, the Court determines that Plaintiff has stated a
plausible claim against Defendant for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA.
The Court will issue service on Defendant as to these claims.
Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title VII for employment discrimination
based on race, color, and gender, however, will be dismissed. Plaintiff’s charge of
discrimination listed “age” as the only basis of discrimination. 	Doc. 10 at 1. The
narrative portion of the charge also cites only to her age as the reason she believes
she was not granted her transfer. Id. at 1-2 (“I believe that I have been discriminated
against due to the belief I would be retiring in the near future in violation of The Age
Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967.”). 	In neither her charge nor her
complaint does Plaintiff identify her race, color, or gender. 	Because Plaintiff has
not administratively exhausted any claims of employment discrimination based on
race, color, or gender, the Court will dismiss these claims.
Accordingly,
Case: 4:25-cv-00822-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act for employment discrimination on the basis of race, color,
and gender are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process on
Defendant 	Midwest Block & Brick/Quikrete Company 	at the address 	of its
registered agent, Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 12747 Olive Boulevard, Suite
300B, St. Louis, Missouri, 63141-6269.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Opinion, Memorandum
and Order.
Dated this 14 th day of January, 2026.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00822-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>