Cubas v. St. James Par. Sch. Bd.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1322-WBV-KWR SECTION: D (4) |
| Parties | LATASHA CUBAS v. ST. JAMES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) Motion to Dismiss, filed by defendant, Paul McDonald.1 Also before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) Motion to Dismiss, filed by defendants, St. James Parish School Board, P. Edward Cancienne, Jr., Kelly Cook, Anne Detillier, Vondra Steib, Sabra Robichaux, Hollie Folse, and Becky Louque.2 Latasha Cubas filed one Opposition brief in response to both motions.3 After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, both Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
This is an employment discrimination case. Latasha Cubas filed a Complaint in this Court asserting employment discrimination claims under Louisiana and federal law against St. James Parish School Board, P. Edward Cancienne, Jr., in his individual and official capacity as Superintendent of St. James Parish Schools, KellyCook, in her individual and official capacity as Administrator/Director of Student Services of St. James Parish Schools, Anne Detillier, in her individual and official capacity as Director of Teaching and Learning K-12, Vondra Steib, in her individual and official capacity as Director of Special Education, Sabra Robichaux, in her individual and official capacity as Pupil Appraisal/504 Coordinator,4 Hollie Folse, in her individual and official capacity as principal of Paulina Elementary School, Becky Louque, in her individual and official capacity as Virtual Academy Principal and Paul McDonald, in his individual and official capacity as Special Education Consultant at St. James Parish School Board.5 Plaintiff asserts that she has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on February 7, 2020, which issued a right to sue letter that same day.6
Plaintiff alleges that she was hired as a school psychologist by St. James Parish School Board in March 2015, and that her job duties included evaluating pupils to determine whether they qualified for special education, accommodations and gifted and talented programs.7 Without specifying when the illegal activity began, Plaintiff alleges that she complained of illegal activity by defendants, Detillier, Steib, Robichaux, Folse, Louque, McDonald and Cancienne to her immediate supervisors,Robichaux and Steib, "continuously throughout her employment."8 Such illegal conduct includes changing student evaluations, illegally falsifying official documents, discrimination against minorities and special education students, destruction of test protocols and student folders, failing to provide special education services and refusal to provide other needed services, failing to comply with and changing students' Individualized Education Plans, backdating official documents, and changing evaluations "to change the trajectory of children [sic] lives to fit the nonscientific evaluation of principal and make evaluation due to political connection and who parents are and not the abilities of the child."9 Plaintiff claims that after reporting this activity, she was labeled a "troublemaker" and a "roadblock" by coworkers and her supervisors, Robichaux, Steib, Detillier, and Folse.10 Plaintiff contends that she "continuously complained and continuously reported the illegal activity to her supervisors throughout her employment," with the last major incidents occurring on August 20, 2019 and October 15, 2019.11
Plaintiff alleges that on August 20, 2019, she was called into a meeting with Cancienne, the Parish Superintendent, and 22 other people, during which Cancienne told Plaintiff she could "get on the boat or get off the boat," and that school principals would be making decisions regarding special education.12 When Plaintiff challenged this directive as illegal during the meeting, Cancienne allegedly told Plaintiff to makeher evaluations fit the determinations made by the principal and then belittled and berated Plaintiff.13 Plaintiff alleges that she informed Cook of the "illegal activity, the harassment by her supervisor, and the retaliation," and Cook advised that she would investigate the allegations. Although Cook later advised Plaintiff that her complaints were valid, Cook told Plaintiff that she did not want to take any remedial actions because "it could open up a can of worms and there would be no turning back."14 Plaintiff alleges that the harassment, complaints about her job performance, retaliation and treatment by her supervisor got worse at that point. According to Plaintiff, Folse "began to make false accusations regarding Plaintiff's work, spreading lies and rumors about the Plaintiff, making the job more difficult by adding unnecessary tasks to job responsibilities," and Steib and Cook told Plaintiff that they were going to get rid of her.15 Plaintiff asserts that she was not given assistance or support, and that she reported all of the behavior to Robichaux, Steib, and Detillier.16
Plaintiff alleges that another meeting was held on October 15, 2019, during which she told her supervisors that she would not change special education evaluations or break the law and that she was told to "just bend the law" and to "water herself down."17 During that meeting Plaintiff "informed everyone present that what was being done was illegal."18 Plaintiff asserts that the "harassment, verbal attacks, and criticism [sic], alienating, name calling [sic] continued," and that her supervisorscontinued to make "horrible complaints" regarding her job performance.19 Plaintiff claims that, "Paul McDonald even joined in the retaliation by telling Plaintiff to stay in her lane and cursing her and berating her for standing up to illegal activity."20 Plaintiff alleges that she began experiencing mental health issues due to the workplace conditions and submitted her letter of resignation on December 20, 2019.21
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on May 1, 2020, asserting claims of employment discrimination under Louisiana and federal law. In Counts 1 through 3, Plaintiff alleges that all of the defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. §2000, et seq. through unlawful retaliation and constructive discharge, race discrimination and harassment based on Plaintiff's race and sex.22 Plaintiff also alleges race discrimination under La. R.S. 23:301, the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law in Count 2.23 In Count , Plaintiff alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment Retaliation claim against all of the defendants.24 Plaintiff's additional state law claims are asserted in Counts 5 through 7, including a claim for defamation in Count 5, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Count 6, and a claim under the Louisiana Whistleblower statute, La. R.S. 23:967, in Count 7.25 Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of back pay, front pay, non-pecuniary lossesincluding emotional distress, damages for loss of enjoyment and humiliation, past and future pecuniary losses, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.26
On July 15, 2020, Paul McDonald ("McDonald"), in his individual and official capacity as Special Education Consultant at St. James Parish School Board, filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, seeking to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).27 The remaining defendants - St. James Parish School Board, Cancienne, Cook, Detillier, Steib, Robichaux, Folse and Louque (collectively, "the remaining Defendants," or individually by their last name) - filed an identical Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the same day, asserting similar arguments to McDonald.28 As such, the Court will discuss the Motions to Dismiss together when appropriate and, in doing so, will refer to all of the defendants collectively as "Defendants."
Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) based upon Plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, which indicates a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.29 Defendants claim that Plaintiff's Right to Sue letter from the EEOC fails to include any factual allegations, although the letter references an attached summary of allegations that is not attached to the Complaint and had not been provided to any of the defendants as of the date of their Motions to Dismiss, despite their request.30 Defendants also point out that the Right to Sue letter wasissued the same day that the EEOC charge was filed, and that the purpose of the exhaustion doctrine "to facilitate the EEOC's investigation and conciliatory functions and to recognize its role as primary enforcer of anti-discrimination laws" cannot be fulfilled under such facts.31 Defendants contend that, since the scope of a Title VII complaint is limited to the allegations in the EEOC charge and Defendants have not received the factual summary that was attached to Plaintiff's EEOC charge, then all of her Title VII claims should be deemed outside of the EEOC charge and dismissed.32 Defendants contend that the checking of three boxes on the EEOC charge is insufficient to establish any baseline facts in this case.33
Defendants also seek dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.34 Defendants seek dismissal of the Title VII claims asserted against the individual defendants in Counts 1 through 3 of the Complaint on the basis that Title VII only allows claims against employers, not individuals.35 Similarly, Defendants assert that Counts 2 and 7 should be dismissed because neither La. R.S. 23:301, as asserted by Plaintiff in Count 2, nor the Louisiana Whistleblower statute, La. R.S. 23:967, as asserted by Plaintiff in Count 7, allows forclaims against individuals.36 Defendants further assert that the claims brought against...
To continue reading
Request your trial