Yazdi v. Lafayette Parish et al

Filing 21

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow Plaintiff, within 14 days of the entry of this ruling, the opportunity to seek leave to amend her Complaint; and thereafter, to the rights of the Defendant to reurge its motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 9/20/2018. (crt,Chicola, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

AZADEH MARIAM YAZDI

CASE NO. 6:18-CV-00510

VERSUS

UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE

SCHOOL BOARD OF LAFAYETTE MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST
PARISH ET AL

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State A Claim Upon
Which Relief Can Be Granted 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant, Lafayette Parish
School Board (“School Board”), [Rec. Doc. 12], Plaintiff, Azadeh Mariam
Yazdi’s (“Yazdi”), Memorandum in Opposition [Rec. Doc. 14-1] and
Defendant’s Reply thereto [Rec. Doc. 17].
On April 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed this Complaint seeking to hold the School
Board liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana state law for violations of her
civil rights caused by the alleged actions of defendants Dr. Donald Aguillard
(“Aguillard”), Anette Samec (“Simec”), Barbara Pippin (“Pippin”), Robin Olivier
(“Olivier”) and Tia LeBurn (“LeBurn”). In her Opposition, Yazdi states that the
following represent “all of the facts and allegations included in her original
Complaint”:

Plaintiff was employed by the Lafayette Parish School Board as
a marketing and recruiting coordinator in the fall of 2016. Part of
Plaintiff’s job duties including responsibility over the School Board’s
‘Schools of Choice’ program. Through her administration of the
Schools of Choice program, Plaintiff uncovered evidence which led her
to reasonably believe that the named defendants manipulated the lottery
system by which students were selected for the program, in violation of
Board policy, as well as federal and state law. After reporting the
potential violations to her supervisor, Plaintiff alleges that she was
disciplined and recommended for termination by Defendant Olivier.
Further, Plaintiff was advised by Defendants Pippin and Samec that she
would be treated harshly, including termination, if she took action in
reporting the potential violations. Thereafter, Plaintiff allegedly faced
harsh and adverse treatment, which she felt was retaliatory in nature
and meant to create an unfavorable atmosphere in an effort to force
Plaintiff to resign her position. The adverse treatment included sexually
suggestive statements by Defendants Samec and Olivier, as well as
attempts to coerce Plaintiff into signing a new and unfavorable contract.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that, after reporting the adverse treatment to
Superintendent Aguillard, she was reprimanded and eventually
terminated, on the recommendation of Defendant Samec.
R. 14-1, p. 2.
The School Board filed the instant motion arguing that the only specific claim
made in her Complaint against the Board is Yazdi’s conclusory allegations that the
other individual defendants’ “actions [are] attributable to the School Board under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.” R. 1, ¶ 18. Because “a municipality cannot be
held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory, the School Board requests
that the Court dismiss Yazdi’s Complaint with prejudice and at her costs. In its Reply
to Plaintiff’s Opposition memorandum, the School Board further contends that
Yazdi made broad conclusory allegations in her Complaint that Defendants violated
2

her “civil rights existing under the Constitution of the United States of America as
well as the Louisiana Constitution” as well as “damages for Louisiana tort,” Id., ¶3,
but for the first time raised in her Opposition only that (1) “she was “exercising free
speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments;” (2) “her right to freedom from
workplace harassment under federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws” was
violated; and (3) “her statutorily-protected rights under the Louisiana Whistleblower
Statute” was violated. R. 14-1, p. 4. Additionally, they state that it appears Yazdi
contends that the “single incident exception” is an exception to the prohibition of
municipal liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior that applies to her case.
Id., pp. 7-8.
The School Board argues that Yazdi has failed to allege sufficient facts in her
Complaint to establish any of these claims raised solely in her Opposition to the
instant motion. The Court agrees. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
plaintiff must plead [in the Complaint] “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205
(5th Cir.,2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level[.]” In re Katrina Breaches Litig. at 205 (quoting Twombly, at 555).

3

Here, Yazdi requests that the Court grant her leave to amend her Complaint
in order to the allege facts sufficient to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8.” R. 14-1, p. 9. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to allow Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this ruling,
the opportunity to seek leave to amend her Complaint; and thereafter, to the rights
of the Defendant to reurge its motion to dismiss.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 20th day of September, 2018.

4