Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER GRANTING 3 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (ga)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SA N ANTONIO DIVISION E Q U A L EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY C O M M ISS IO N , P l a i n t if f , v. O D Y SSEY HEALTHCARE, INC. f/d/b/a VISTACARE, INC. D efendant. C IV IL ACTION NO. S A -0 9 -C V -7 9 6 -X R OR DER B efore the Court is Aless D. Menchaca's Motion for Leave to Intervene (docket no. 3). After co ns iderin g the motion and applicable law, the Court grants the motion. I. Statement of the Case T he Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought the current action against O d y ss ey Healthcare, Inc. (Odyssey), on September 29, 2009. The EEOC filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct u n law fu l employment practices and to provide relief to Aless D. Menchaca. In its complaint, the EEOC allege s that Odyssey discriminated against Menchaca based on his national origin and acted in re ta lia tio n for his engaging in protected activity. On or about February 20, 2008, Menchaca, who was employed at Odyssey's Kerrville, Texas facility, filed a verbal complaint with his employer's Human Resources Director. In this complaint, M enchaca claimed that his supervisor was attempting to fire him and had made racial slurs directed to w a rd him. On March 20, 2008, Defendant terminated Menchaca's employment. Menchaca and the E E O C claim he was terminated in retaliation for Menchaca's prior complaints of discrimination. The EEOC seeks permanent injunctions enjoining Odyssey from discriminating based on n atio n al origin and from engaging in retaliation for conduct protected by Title VII. It also seeks m onetary relief that would make Menchaca whole, compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, co m pe ns ation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, and punitive damages for engaging in discrim inatory practices. M enchaca seeks an intervention of right pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C 2000e-5(f)(1). II. Legal Standards and Analysis U n d er the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are permitted to voluntarily join a pending s uit, and courts generally construe this right broadly. See FED. R. CIV. P. 24. An intervention of right re qu ire s that the party show that a federal statute gives them an unconditional right to intervene in the action . FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(1). In Title VII cases brought by the EEOC, the individuals on whose be ha lf the case is brought have such an unconditional right under 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-5(f)(1). The S u p re m e Court has held that if the EEOC files suit on its own, the statutory scheme prevents the em ployee from bringing a separate federal cause of action for a violation of Title VII while the EEOC's action is pending, but the employee may intervene in the EEOC's suit. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 53 4 U.S. 279, 291 (2002); see also EEOC v. Woodmen, 479 F.3d 561, 570 (8th Cir. 2007)("an em ployee indisputably has a right to intervene in an EEOC enforcement action."). Thus, Menchaca ha s satisfied the unconditional right requirement of Rule 24. See FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(1). A motion to intervene must also be timely filed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(3). In order to d ete rm in e whether the motion to intervene is timely, the court considers the length of time between the in te rv en o r's learning of his interest and filing, the prejudice to the defendant from intervention, the pre jud ice to the intervenor from a denial of intervention, and any unusual circumstances. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, 570 F.3d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 2009). This suit has been pending only two m o n th s, and Menchaca claims to have only recently learned of the suit. Odyssey should not be p reju d iced because Menchaca's claims are identical to those of the EEOC and involve the same tran sactio n s. Further, "during the pendency of the EEOC's enforcement action, the statutory scheme 2 prevents [Menchaca] from bringing a separate federal cause of action." Woodmen, 479 F.3d at 568. A ccordingly, intervention is proper. III. Conclusion IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Aless Menchaca's Motion for Leave to Intervene (docket entry no. 3) is GRANTED. It is so ORDERED. S IG N E D this 18th day of December, 2009. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X A V IE R RODRIGUEZ U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?