Poe et al v. Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTINE POE, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
) 	Case No. 4:25-CV-1338-ACL
FLEMING’S PRIME STEAKHOUSE 	)
AND WINE BAR, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim. (Doc. 6.)
I. 	Background
On July 3, 2025, Plaintiffs Christine Poe and Dr. Leroy Scott filed a Petition in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against Fleming’s Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar
(“Fleming’s”) alleging race discrimination in public accommodation under the Missouri Human
Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010 et seq. (“MHRA”). 	(Doc. 4.) 	The Petition states that
Plaintiffs entered the premises of Defendant’s restaurant on October 7, 2023, for the purpose of
dining, and Defendant refused to serve Plaintiffs and requested that Plaintiffs leave the premises.
Id. at 3. 	Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s refusal to serve Plaintiffs was not based on any
legitimate reason and was instead based on unlawful discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Id.
On September 5, 2025, Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity
of citizenship. (Doc. 1.)
Case: 4:25-cv-01338-ACL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, in which Defendant argues that the Complaint should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because Plaintiffs failed
to exhaust their administrative remedies. 	Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiffs failed to
state a claim under the MHRA, because they did not plead they were members of a protected class
or that their membership in a protected class was the motivating factor for any alleged
discrimination.
Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendant’s Motion and the time for doing so has expired.
II. 	Legal Standard
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of
the complaint. Johnson v. McDonald Corp., 542 F. Supp. 3d 888, 890 (E.D. Mo. 2021). The
Court accepts all factual allegations as true and construes them in favor of the plaintiff. Id. To
survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqubal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially
plausible 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. Courts are not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, and factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Torti v. Hoag, 868 F.3d 666, 671
(8th Cir. 2017).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Timeliness and Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
The MHRA establishes a statutory cause of action for discrimination. The MHRA
requires a plaintiff to exhaust his or her administrative remedies before filing suit. Jeffery v. St.
Case: 4:25-cv-01338-ACL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Louis Fire Dep’t, 506 S.W.3d 394, 398 (Mo. App. 2016). In order to exhaust administrative
remedies for a claim under the MHRA, a plaintiff must file a complaint with the Missouri
Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”) within 180 days of the alleged discrimination and
either adjudicate the claim through the MCHR or obtain a right-to-sue letter. Stuart v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.075.1. The MHRA’s
exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.075.1 (referring to the
“jurisdictional precedent to filing a civil action under” the MHRA).
Here, Plaintiffs do not allege in their Petition that they filed a charge of discrimination or
received a notice of right to sue, and no such documents have been filed. Defendant states that
Fleming’s is unaware of any filing of a charge of discrimination, and only became aware of
Plaintiffs’ allegations when the Petition was filed. (Doc. 7 at 3.) Because the alleged
discrimination occurred on October 7, 2023, Plaintiffs were required to file their charge of
discrimination no later than April 4, 2024. As previously noted, Plaintiffs did not respond to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they have exhausted
their administrative remedies and their Complaint will be dismissed on this basis.
II. 	Failure to State a Claim
Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted because they have not pleaded sufficient facts to establish the elements of a claim of
discrimination under the MHRA.
To succeed on a claim of discrimination under the MHRA a plaintiff must show that: (1)
plaintiff is a member of a class protected by § 213.065; (2) plaintiff was discriminated against in
the use of a public accommodation (as defined by § 213.010); and (3) plaintiff’s status as a
member of a protected class was a contributing factor in that discrimination. M.N. by & Through
Case: 4:25-cv-01338-ACL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
S.N v. N. Kansas City Sch. Dist., 597 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Appleberry
ex rel. R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist., 568 S.W.3d 420, 430 (Mo. banc 2019)).
Here, as Defendant points out, Plaintiffs did not plead that they are members of a
protected class. Instead, Plaintiffs state that they were denied full and equal use and enjoyment
of Defendant’s restaurant “based on Plaintiff’s race,” but do not articulate the race of either
Plaintiff. (Doc. 4 at 4.) Thus, even if Plaintiffs could demonstrate they exhausted their
administrative remedies, Plaintiffs’ Complaint would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a
MHRA claim.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 22 nd day of January, 2026.
Case: 4:25-cv-01338-ACL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>