Merriweather v. Holmes County School District

Filing 31

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss Title IX Claims and denying request for interlocutory appeal. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 03/03/2016 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CAROLYN MERRIWEATHER

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 3:15CV737-LG-RHW

HOLMES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IX CLAIMS
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Dismiss Title IX Claims [17] filed by
the defendant Holmes County School District (HCSD). The Motion has been fully
briefed by the parties. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record in
this matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss
should be granted.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff Carolyn Merriweather has been employed by HCSD since 1997
as a teacher’s assistant. (Am. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 10). She filed this lawsuit
against HCSD, attempting to assert the following claims pursuant to both Title VII
and Title IX: sex discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and sexually hostile
work environment. (Id. at 3-4). She seeks to recover back wages, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs and expenses. (Id. at 5).
HCSD filed the present Motion seeking dismissal of Merriweather’s Title IX claims.
DISCUSSION
A pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In order to survive a

motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Turner v.
Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “This standard ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ the necessary claims or
elements.” In re S. Scrap Material Co., LLC, 541 F.3d 584, 587 (5th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
The Fifth Circuit has held that “Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for
individuals alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex in federally
funded educational institutions.” Lakoski v. James, 66 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir. 1995).
The court explained that recognition of a Title IX claim for monetary damages due to
employment discrimination would “disrupt a carefully balanced remedial scheme for
redressing employment discrimination by employers.” Id. at 754.
In her response to HCSD’s Motion, Merriweather does not dispute that relief
is available for all of her claims under Title VII or that she is solely seeking
monetary damages, but she argues that this Court should deny HCSD’s Motion,
because she claims that the Lakoski decision conflicts with prior United States
Supreme Court decisions. However, the Lakoski court addressed those prior
decisions and rejected the same argument presented here by Merriweather. See id.
at 753-54. Merriweather also notes that there is a circuit split on this issue.
However, a circuit split does not permit this Court to ignore Fifth Circuit precedent
or to overrule a Fifth Circuit decision. As a result, HCSD’s Motion must be granted,
-2-

and Merriweather’s Title IX claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
Merrweather also asks this Court to grant her permission to file an
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in the event that this Court
grants HCSD’s Motion. A district judge may make an interlocutory order appealable
when he is “of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Fifth Circuit, while expressing its inability and
unwillingness to overturn Lakoski, has held that Lakoski “is the settled law of this
circuit.” Lowrey v. Tex. A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus,
there is no ground for a difference of opinion and no basis to grant an interlocutory
appeal. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Title VII claims remain. Consequently, an
interlocutory appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this
litigation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Merriweather’s Title IX claims
should be dismissed with prejudice, and her request for an interlocutory appeal
should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to
Dismiss Title IX Claims [17] filed by the defendant Holmes County School District is
GRANTED. Carolyn Merriweather’s Title IX claims are hereby DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
-3-

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Carolyn
Merriweather’s request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of March, 2016.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-