McCorkle-Turner v. Charlotte Mecklenburg School System

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00749-KDB-DCK
LYNETTE MCCORKLE-
TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG
SCHOOL SYSTEM,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8). The
Court has carefully considered this motion and the parties’ respective briefs. For the reason briefly
discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion, dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims as untimely
and decline jurisdiction over her state law claims.
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to unlawful employment
discrimination and retaliation on account of her race and age. After receiving a right-to-sue letter
from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), a plaintiff must file suit in
federal court within 90 days. 42 USCS § 2000e-5. Similar timing requirements apply to claims
under the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C. § 626. Plaintiff received her most recent right-to-sue letter from
the EEOC on May 2, 2024. Doc. No. 1 at 30. Under federal law, Plaintiff was required to file her
federal court complaint within 90 days of receiving that letter. Accordingly, the deadline for filing
her Complaint was July 31, 2024. However, Plaintiff did not file her Complaint until September
30, 2025, more than one year after the 90-day deadline expired. This failure to file within the
statutory 90-day period makes Plaintiff’s claims untimely because the 90-day filing requirement
Case 3:25-cv-00749-KDB-DCK Document 18 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
is a statutory prerequisite to suit that operates as a statute of limitations. Thus, this Court must
dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims.
In addition to her claims under federal law, Plaintiff asserts one or more claims under
North Carolina law. However, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the federal question
jurisdiction on which this action depends is lacking and the court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Ins.
PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012); Mann v. Power Home Solar, LLC, No.
521CV00166KDBDSC, 2022 WL 602196, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2022). In the exercise of its
discretion, the Court will decline any further consideration of Plaintiff’s state law claims, leaving
the merits of those claims to be determined in state court.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims
under federal law;
2. Further, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims,
which are DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: May 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00749-KDB-DCK Document 18 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 2