Warren v. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JAMIA WARREN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KANSAS CITY KANSAS PUBLIC
SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-2420-EFM-TJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jamia Warren, proceeding pro se, filed suit against Defendant Kansas City Kansas
Public Schools asserting a race discrimination claim under Title VII and a disability discrimination
claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 8) arguing that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because her claims are time-barred
or are otherwise subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Plaintiff
did not file a response. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion.
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background1
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as senior-level administrative support staff. She alleges that
she was discriminated against between February 2024 through April 2024. She asserts that she has
been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and requested minor accommodations. Instead of
support, she claims that she was subject to increased scrutiny and was falsely accused of
1 The facts in this section are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint unless otherwise cited.
Case 2:25-cv-02420-EFM-TJJ Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated her based on the false allegations of
misconduct, and she believes the termination was pretext for race discrimination and retaliation
for her disability and reasonable accommodation requests.
Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) on April 9, 2024.2 On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff received her Notice of
Right to Sue from the EEOC.3 The letter provided that if Plaintiff decided to file a lawsuit that she
must file it within 90 days of receiving the Notice. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on July 29, 2025,
alleging that she was discriminated and retaliated against due to her race and disability.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be
dismissed because she did not file it within 90 days of receiving her Right to Sue Letter from the
EEOC, and thus it is time-barred. Plaintiff did not file a response.4
II. 	Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal of
any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.5 Upon
such motion, the court must decide “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim
2 Plaintiff also contrarily alleges that she did not file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. Defendant,
however, attached Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination to its Motion to Dismiss, and it is dated April 9, 2024. And
Plaintiff asserts, and attaches, the EEOC’s Right to Sue Letter to her Complaint. Thus, because the Charge of
Discrimination is related to the EEOC’s Right to Sue Letter, Plaintiff does not dispute its authenticity, and it is central
to Plaintiff’s claim, the Court considered the document. See Davis v. BAE Sys. Tech. Sols. & Servs. Inc., 764 F. App’x
741, 742 n.1 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Court can consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss when
those documents are central to the plaintiff’s claim and the document’s authenticity is not disputed).
3 As noted above, Plaintiff attached her April 24, 2025 EEOC Right to Sue Letter as an exhibit to her
Complaint.
4 The Court also notes that Magistrate Judge Teresa James set a scheduling/status conference by telephone
for November 17, 2025. Defendant appeared for the hearing, but Plaintiff failed to do so.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Case 2:25-cv-02420-EFM-TJJ Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
to relief that is plausible on its face.’”6 A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts
sufficient for the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.7
The plausibility standard reflects the requirement in Rule 8 that pleadings provide defendants with
fair notice of the nature of claims as well as the grounds on which each claim rests.8 Under Rule
12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, but need not afford
such a presumption to legal conclusions.9 Viewing the complaint in this manner, the court must
decide whether the plaintiff’s allegations give rise to more than speculative possibilities.10 If the
allegations in the complaint are “so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much
of it innocent, then the plaintiffs ‘have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.’”11
III. 	Analysis
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s suit is untimely because she did not file it within 90
days of receiving her Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC. 12 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1),
the EEOC must send the aggrieved party a right to sue letter informing the party that her right to
6 Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
7 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
8 See Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2).
9 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79.
10 See id. at 678 (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (citation omitted)).
11 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
12 In addition, and alternatively, Defendant asserts that if some of Plaintiff’s claims were not filed with, or
were not timely filed with the EEOC, those claims are subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff cannot request punitive damages against a governmental entity. The
Court finds it unnecessary to address Defendant’s alternative, additional arguments.
Case 2:25-cv-02420-EFM-TJJ Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 4

-4-
sue will expire 90 days after receipt of the letter.13 A plaintiff is barred from bringing a lawsuit
more than 90 days after receipt of the EEOC’s Right to Sue letter.14
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that she received her Right to Sue Letter on April 24, 2025.
Indeed, Plaintiff attaches the letter to her Complaint. And the letter clearly states, “you must file
[the lawsuit] in the appropriate court within 90 days of receiving this Notice.” Ninety days
from April 24, 2025 is July 23, 2025, and thus Plaintiff needed to file her lawsuit by that date.
Plaintiff did not do so because she filed the Complaint on July 29, 2025. Accordingly, because
Plaintiff filed her lawsuit more than 90 days after receipt of the Right to Sue Letter, her claims are
time-barred.15
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This case is closed.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2026.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1601.19(a).
14 See Smith v. Cheyenne Ret. Investors L.P., 904 F.3d 1159, 1161 (10th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff
has 90 days to file suit after receiving the EEOC’s Right to Sue letter); Abraham v. Gold Crown Mgmt. LLC, 2019
WL 174973, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 11, 2019) (stating that “[i]f a plaintiff does not bring a lawsuit within 90 days after
receiving the Right to Sue letter, plaintiff’s claims are time-barred”) (citations omitted).
15 The Court again notes that Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and she failed
to appear for a status conference on November 17, 2025. Thus, Plaintiff also fails to participate in and prosecute her
case.
Case 2:25-cv-02420-EFM-TJJ Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 4