Ruth Stoever v. Tech USA, et al

Filing

Ruth Stoever v. Tech USA, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 10-20088

Document: 00511176343

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/16/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
July 16, 2010 N o . 10-20088 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R U T H ELLEN STOEVER, P la in t iff - Appellant v. T E C H USA; BECK DISASTER RECOVERY, INC.; SAIC, D e fe n d a n t s - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas, Houston U S D C No. 4:09-CV-2779

B e fo r e JOLLY, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.. P E R CURIAM:* R u t h Ellen Stoever, pro se, appeals the dismissal of her employment d is c r im in a t io n claims against Tech USA ("Tech"), Beck Disaster Recovery, Inc. (" B e c k " ), and SAIC. I n September 2008, Stoever signed an employment agreement with Tech t o work as a temporary employee on assignment to Beck on a recovery project

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-20088

Document: 00511176343

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/16/2010

No. 10-20088 fo llo w in g Hurricane Ike. The employment agreement contained a provision for m a n d a t o r y arbitration. A fte r Stoever's employment with Tech was terminated, she filed a c o m p la in t against Tech and Beck in federal court, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, age, and race. She later amended the complaint to add SAIC as a defendant, alleging that because Beck is a wholly owned subsidiary of SAIC, S A I C has the same obligations as Beck. T e c h and Beck moved to stay the action, and/or to compel arbitration or, i n the alternative, to dismiss the complaint because all of Stoever's claims are s u b je c t to mandatory arbitration based on the arbitration provision in her e m p lo y m e n t agreement. SAIC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon w h ic h relief could be granted. It argued in its motion that Stoever's allegations w e r e factually incorrect and that, even if correct and proven, it could not be held lia b le for Beck's actions in the absence of any allegation that corporate fo r m a lit ie s were not observed. T h e district court conducted a hearing on the motions, during which the c o u r t patiently questioned Stoever about the basis for her allegations and her o p p o s it io n to the motions to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court g a v e Stoever a week to present additional evidence in opposition to the motions. A fte r considering the additional evidence she presented, the district court g r a n t e d the motions and dismissed Stoever's complaint with prejudice. O n appeal, Stoever's arguments, construed liberally, do not challenge the b a s is for the district court's rulings. Instead, they are focused primarily on the m e r it s of her employment discrimination claims and on factual disputes u n r e la t e d to the enforceability of the arbitration provision in the employment a g r e e m e n t that she signed. Furthermore, she does not present any basis upon w h ic h SAIC could be held liable for any actions of Beck.

2

Case: 10-20088

Document: 00511176343

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/16/2010

No. 10-20088 T h e district court did not err by granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, its judgment is A F F IR M E D .

3