ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has granted Precoat Metals and AZZ Inc.’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a man, ruling that he did not file a required discrimination charge before suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII and that the federal criminal statutes he cited do not allow private civil lawsuits.
In an opinion dated October 8, U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed all claims in Larry Dean Dudley Jr.’s amended complaint.
The court also denied as moot an earlier motion to dismiss filed by the companies. The opinion states that the court will issue a separate order of dismissal.
Dudley, who represented himself, alleged that he suffered a shoulder strain while working at Precoat Metals on June 12, 2024.
He claimed he was denied proper medical treatment and made to work despite light-duty restrictions.
He also alleged that he was required to perform electrical work while under the influence of a prescribed narcotic and had to punch out to attend medical appointments, which he said he was required to pay for.
The amended complaint further alleged that Dudley did not receive adequate training, was harassed by a co-worker because of unspecified disabilities, received unsatisfactory evaluations and was fired while under the supervision of his physician.
The court’s opinion describes these as allegations in Dudley’s complaint; it does not make findings that the alleged events occurred.
Dudley sought $37 million in damages and brought claims under Title VII and the ADA, as well as four federal criminal statutes.
Precoat and AZZ argued that Dudley’s Title VII and ADA claims should be dismissed because he had not exhausted the required administrative process.
The court said a person bringing claims under those laws must first file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state or local agency.
Although that requirement is not jurisdictional, the opinion explains, it is a mandatory precondition to filing suit.
Dudley did not allege in his amended complaint that he had filed a charge with the EEOC or the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.
In opposing dismissal, he argued that he was not required to do so and cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Fort Bend County v. Davis.
The judge concluded that Dudley had misinterpreted that decision: the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but remains mandatory. The court therefore dismissed his Title VII and ADA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The judge did not decide the companies’ separate argument that Missouri workers’ compensation law provided the exclusive remedy for claims involving workplace injuries.
The opinion says the court did not need to reach that issue after dismissing the discrimination claims on exhaustion grounds.
The court also dismissed Dudley’s claims under the four criminal statutes. It agreed with the defendants that the statutes did not create an express or implied private right of action permitting Dudley to sue them in a civil case based on alleged violations.
The opinion cited federal appellate and district court decisions addressing the statutes, along with a Supreme Court decision stating that private rights and remedies to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.
With the Title VII and ADA claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the criminal-statute claims dismissed for lack of a private right of action, the court said no claims remained in the amended complaint.
The motion to dismiss filed by Precoat Metals and AZZ was granted, and the case was dismissed in its entirety.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:26-cv-204
