Schmitz, Jennifer v. Milestone Materials et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JENNIFER LYNN SCHMITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
MILESTONE MATERIALS, MATHY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and ALM HOLDING
COMPANY,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-667-jdp
Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Schmitz, proceeding without counsel, alleges that she was
discharged from her job at defendant Milestone Materials, a division of defendant Mathy
Construction Company, based on her gender. Schmitz is proceeding on a gender discrimination
claim for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Defendant ALM Holding Company, which holds Mathy Construction according to
Schmitz, moves to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dkt. 23. ALM Holding Company
contends that Schmitz failed to name it as a respondent in her charge of discrimination filed
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I will grant the motion, dismiss
without prejudice Schmitz’s claim against ALM Holding Company, and remove it from the
case.
ANALYSIS
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Gunn v.
Cont’l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 2020). When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
Case: 3:24-cv-00667-jdp Document #: 33 Filed: 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
dismiss, courts may consider documents incorporated into the complaint by reference. Tellabs,
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). Specifically, courts may consider a
defense that a plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Rule 12(b)(6) when
an EEOC charge incorporated into the complaint by reference shows that the plaintiff did not
meet the exhaustion requirement. See Williams v. City of Chicago, 616 F. Supp. 3d 808, 814 n.2
(N.D. Ill. 2022); Hale v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ. Sch. of Med., 219 F. Supp. 3d 860, 864–65
(C.D. Ill. 2016). An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and becomes the
controlling pleading in the case. Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999).
Before bringing suit under Title VII, a party must file a charge of discrimination with
the EEOC, and a party not named as a respondent in the charge ordinarily may not be sued in
a private civil action under Title VII. Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir.
2013). “This requirement gives the employer some warning of the conduct about which the
employee is aggrieved and affords the EEOC and the employer an opportunity to attempt
conciliation without resort to the courts.” Id. An exception to this rule applies when an
unnamed party has adequate notice of the charge and an opportunity to participate in
conciliation proceedings aimed at voluntary compliance. Id. If an employer’s parent company
was not named in an EEOC charge and did not have an opportunity to conciliate on its own
behalf, the plaintiff’s Title VII claims against the parent company must be dismissed, even if
the parent company received notice of the charge against the employer. See id. at 667;
Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 127 (7th Cir. 1989).
Schmitz’s EEOC charge, which 	is incorporated by reference 	into the amended
complaint, fails to name ALM Holding Company as a respondent. See Dkt. 1-3 at 1; Dkt. 4
at 1; Dkt. 13-1 at 1. Even if ALM Holding Company received notice of Schmitz’s charge, she
Case: 3:24-cv-00667-jdp Document #: 33 Filed: 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
hasn’t pleaded any facts plausibly suggesting that ALM Holding Company had an opportunity
to participate in conciliation proceedings on its own behalf. See Dkt. 4. Nor do the documents
incorporated 	by 	reference 	into 	the 	amended 	complaint 	indicate 	that 	ALM 	had 	that
opportunity. See the attachments to Dkt. 1; Dkt. 4 at 1. Along similar lines, in her brief in
opposition, Schmitz does not dispute ALM Holding Company’s contention that it failed to
receive an opportunity to conciliate on its own behalf. See Dkt. 29. Accordingly, I will grant
the motion, dismiss Schmitz’s gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company,
and remove it from the case.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant ALM Holding Company’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 22, is GRANTED.
2. 	Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Schmitz’s Title VII gender discrimination claim against ALM
Holding Company is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	ALM Holding Company is to be removed from the case.
Entered April 1, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00667-jdp Document #: 33 Filed: 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3