Smith v. Houston Independent School District
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's claims for age and gender discrimination are dismissed. Claims for racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and retaliation remain pending..(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rvazquez)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SCWYANA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-3083
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Houston Independent School District’s (“HISD”)
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) the claims of age and gender discrimination made by Plaintiff
Scwyana Smith (“Smith”). Having considered the motion, the record in the case, and the
applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted.
I.
Background
Smith was employed by HISD until May 12, 2011, when she was laid off as part of a
reduction in force. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13, Doc. 1; Charge of Discrimination, Doc. 1 Ex. 1. On May
24, 2011, Smith filed a charge of discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil
Rights Division, checking the boxes on the charge form for “race,” “religion,” and “retaliation.”
Doc. 1 Ex. 1. In stating the particulars of her charge, Smith wrote: “I believe that I have been
discriminated against because of my race, black, and religion, Christian, and retaliated against, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.” Doc. 1 Ex. 1. On July 19,
2012, after an investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division issued a Notice of Right to Sue (Doc. 1 Ex. 3),
giving Smith 90 days to commence a civil action.
1/4
On October 17, 2012, within those 90 days, Smith filed her complaint. In addition to
stating causes of action for racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and retaliation, Doc. 1
¶¶ 24, 30, Smith also stated a cause of action for gender discrimination, Doc. 1 ¶¶ 25, 33, and
listed one of the bases for this Court’s jurisdiction as the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, Doc. 1 ¶ 3. HISD now seeks to dismiss any claims of gender or age discrimination pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II.
Legal Standard
In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must include “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Hershey v. Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P., 610 F.3d 239, 245 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2))
(internal quotation marks omitted). Where exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite
to filing suit, failure to plead satisfaction of this prerequisite forms a proper basis for a Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal. Taylor v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 127 F.3d 470, 478 n.8 (5th Cir. 1997). For
claims of employment discrimination, a plaintiff exhausts her remedies when she obtains a notice
of right to sue. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir. 2002). However, this
notice covers only “the discrimination stated in the charge itself or developed in the course of a
reasonable EEOC investigation of that charge.” Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. v. City Pub. Serv.
Bd., 40 F.3d 698, 712 (5th Cir. 1994) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
III.
Discussion
Defendants argue that because “[t]here is nothing in Plaintiff’s Charge, factually or
legally, about age or gender discrimination,” Smith “failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies … with respect to her age or gender discrimination claims,” and those claims should
2/4
therefore be dismissed. Doc. 4 at 4. Smith’s response does not address this argument, instead
stating only that:
Plaintiff … filed charges of race, religion and/or retaliation discrimination with
the District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Such
charge and the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint sufficiently alleged facts necessary
to prove each element of their cause of action in the Plaintiff’s Original
Complaint. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint details and outlines each and every one
of the allegations of discrimination against the Defendant as enumerated in her
charge with the EEOC.
Doc. 5 ¶ 7.
This is merely a recital of Smith’s charge of discrimination: allegations of racial and
religious discrimination and retaliation, but no mention of age or gender discrimination. Indeed,
Smith’s complaint and the attached charge both make explicitly clear that she never pursued
administrative remedies for age or gender discrimination, let alone exhausted them. This failure
serves as a bar to pursuing those claims in federal court, Books A Million, 296 F.3d at 378, and,
because the last alleged unlawful employment action was her termination on May 12, 2011, it is
now too late to remedy that defect, see Cruce v. Brazosport Indep. Sch. Dist., 703 F.2d 862, 863
(5th Cir. 1983) (“[C]harges [must] be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment
practice.”). Although failure to exhaust administrative remedies warrants dismissal without
prejudice in some cases, Taylor, 127 F.3d at 478, in this case, repleading claims for age or
gender discrimination would be futile. See Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th
Cir. 2000) (defining futility “to mean that the amended complaint would [still] fail to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted”). Accordingly, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
3/4
ORDERED that Defendant Houston Independent School District’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 4) is GRANTED and Plaintiff Scwyana Smith’s claims for age and gender discrimination
are DISMISSED. Smith’s other claims for racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and
retaliation remain pending.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 22nd day of July, 2013.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4/4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?