Sinkfield v. University of Texas Medical Branch

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
v.
§
§
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL §
BRANCH,
§
Defendant.
§

October 25, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

MARIE SINKFIELD,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-03395

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Marie Sinkfield, who proceeds pro se, brings this suit alleging
employment discrimination. On September 13, 2017, Defendant University of Texas
Medical Branch (“UTMB”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) [Doc. # 19]. Plaintiff filed a Response [Doc. # 20] and
Defendant filed a Reply [Doc. # 21].
Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim in this lawsuit is that UTMB discriminated
based on her race when it constructively discharged her.1 Plaintiff maintains that
Defendant constructively discharged her by humiliating her and refusing to

1

See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 17] (claiming race discrimination only);
Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 15], at 11 (identifying the alleged constructive
discharge as the “adverse employment action” for Plaintiff’s race discrimination
claim).

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\3395mtd12c.wpd

171025.1127

accommodate her physical and medical restrictions.2
On March 29, 2015, while still employed by UTMB, Plaintiff filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”).3 Less than three weeks later, on April 17, 2015, Plaintiff submitted to
Defendant a letter stating that she “resign[ed]” her position.4 The EEOC investigation
was pending at the time. The EEOC closed its file on August 18, 2016.5
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss raises the threshold issue of whether Plaintiff
exhausted her constructive discharge claim before the EEOC. A district court may not
entertain a Title VII claim unless the plaintiff has first exhausted her administrative
remedies by filing a charge before the EEOC. Taylor v. Books A Million, 296 F.3d
376, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2002); Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 40
F.3d 698, 711 (5th Cir. 1994). See Anderson v. Venture Express, 694 F. App’x 243,
2

See Response [Doc. # 20], at 1-2. Defendant vigorously contests these allegations and
claims, among other things, that it accommodated her restrictions.

3

See Charge of Discrimination (attached to original Complaint [Doc. # 1] (“EEOC
Charge”).

4

See Letter dated Apr. 17, 2015 (Exhibit A to Amended Complaint) (“This letter is to
inform you of my resignation from UTMB-CMC. My last day will be April 24, 2015.
Thank you.”).

5

Dismissal and Notice of Rights (attached to original Complaint [Doc. # 1]) (“Based
on its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained
establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in
compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be
construed as having been raised by this charge.”)

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\3395mtd12c.wpd

171025.1127

2

247 (5th Cir. 2017); Clayton v. Rumsfeld, 106 F. App’x 268, 271 (5th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge was filed before she separated from employment. She
did not complain about constructive discharge in that EEOC Charge. Although the
EEOC investigation was still pending when Plaintiff left her position, there is no
indication that Plaintiff amended or supplemented her EEOC Charge, or filed a new
charge, to complain of constructive discharge from employment. Plaintiff’s Response
points out simply that she was still employed by Defendant when she filed her EEOC
Charge.
The Court cannot determine on this record whether Plaintiff presented her
allegations of constructive discharge to investigators during the pendency of her case
before the EEOC. The Court declines to dismiss this case without development of the
record regarding exhaustion. It is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) [Doc. # 19] is CONVERTED to a motion for summary
judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). Defendant’s request for dismissal based on the
merits of Plaintiff’s Title VII is DENIED without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that on or before November 13, 2017, Plaintiff must file
supplemental briefing and evidence regarding (1) all submissions to the EEOC, if any,
relevant to her claim of constructive discharge and (2) the EEOC’s investigation, if

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\3395mtd12c.wpd

171025.1127

3

any, of that claim. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond as ordered may
result in dismissal of this lawsuit. It is further
ORDERED that on or before November 27, 2017, Defendant must respond to
Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing and evidence, and provide any additional
documentation in its possession, or of which it is aware, of (1) a new charge or
supplemental charge, if any, by Plaintiff regarding constructive discharge, and/or (2)
evidence of investigation, if any, by the EEOC into Plaintiff’s claim of constructive
discharge. It is further
ORDERED that discovery in this action is STAYED pending further order of
the Court. It is finally
ORDERED that all deadlines in the Docket Control Order, such as deadlines
for discovery, mediation, and dispositive motions, are VACATED. The Court will
set future deadlines as necessary after resolution of the exhaustion issue.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 25th day of October, 2017.

NANCY F. ATLAS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\3395mtd12c.wpd

171025.1127

4