Foster v. Jayden Hosp.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-359-SDD-SDJ |
| Parties | KIMBORUGHLY ANN FOSTER v. JAYDEN HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Jayden Hospitality LLC, XSUM LLC, and Surat Hospitality LLC (“Defendants”) (R. Doc. 21). Plaintiff opposes Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 22). Defendants have filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition (R. Doc 27). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 21) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
On or about May 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Jayden Hospitality LLC, XSUM LLC, and Surat Hospitality LLC in state court.[1] Plaintiff later amended her claims against Defendants, filing an Amended Complaint on October 16, 2020 (R. Doc. 16). In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings causes of action for employment discrimination in violation of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their state equivalents, as well as claims of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and comparable state law.[2] Plaintiff's Amended Complaint also brings claims for retaliation and harassment as well as for violations of the Louisiana Whistleblower Statute and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and comparable state law.[3]
According to Plaintiff in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), she was hired on December 1, 2018, by Defendant Jayden Hospitality LLC (“Jayden Hospitality”) as Corporate Director of Sales and Marketing.[4] Jayden Hospitality, along with the other Defendants, owns and operates several hotels.[5] Plaintiff's employment was terminated on May 8, 2019, approximately six (6) months after she was hired. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims myriad violations of the aforementioned statutes during her employment with Jayden Hospitality.
On June 13, 2019, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and race, as well as retaliation.[6] Plaintiff filed a second Charge of Discrimination on June 19, 2019, which alleges only sex and age discrimination and retaliation.[7] On February 19, 2020, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a “right-to-sue” letter, after which Plaintiff instigated this litigation.[8] On June 11, 2020, Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.[9]
In response to Plaintiff's filing of this lawsuit, Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on June 19, 2020.[10] Plaintiff then sought leave of Court to file an Amended Complaint.[11]On December 18, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file her Amended Complaint and, as a result, denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as moot.[12] Prior to that ruling, on November 16, 2020, Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 21) in response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which motion is now before this Court. Plaintiff filed her Opposition thereto on November 24, 2020 (R. Doc. 22).[13] Defendants then filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, with leave of Court, on December 7, 2020 (R. Doc. 27).
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”[14] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) specifically allows for such a motion to dismiss based on a party's “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8, which requires “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 Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading's language must, on its face, demonstrate that there exists plausibility for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In determining whether it is plausible that a pleader is entitled to relief, a court does not assume the truth of conclusory statements, but rather looks for facts which support the elements of the pleader's claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. Factual assertions are presumed to be true, but “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” alone are not enough to withstand a 12(b)(6) motion. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Rather, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“A liberal reading of plaintiff's pleadings is the only special treatment afforded pro se plaintiffs by the courts.” Kiper v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., No. 14-313, 2015 WL 2451998, at *1 (M.D. La. May 21, 2015) (citing Callahan v. C.I.R., No. 99-0295, 2000 WL 1141607, at *1 (M.D. La. Apr. 10, 2000)). A “court is not required to search for or try to create causes of actions or find material issues of fact for pro se plaintiffs.” Id. Indeed, Id. (citing Birl, 660 F.2d at 593).
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff lists the “[v]iolations” she brings therein, which include alleged violations of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their state law equivalents, the ADEA and its state law equivalent, the Louisiana whistleblower statute, and the ADA.[15] Each of these allegations is addressed, in turn, below, following a brief discussion regarding the operative Complaint in this case.
At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint now serves as the operative pleading in this case. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.”); McAdams v. Receivable Recovery Services, LLC, No. 19-248, 2020 WL 1237011, at *1 (M.D. La. March 13, 2020) (“Generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect.”). Thus, while Defendants assert that their Motion to Dismiss “is directed at all 3 of Plaintiff's Petitions/Complaints, ”[16] as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not incorporate any previous Complaints, said Amended Complaint supersedes any prior filings and is now the only operative Complaint in this case. As such, the Court will analyze Defendants' Motion to Dismiss only in light of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Title VI during the period of her employment. As mandated by Title VI:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
42 U.S.C. § 2000d. “The proper defendant in a Title VI case is an entity receiving federal financial assistance.” Lewis v. Brown, No. 14-435, 2015 WL 803124, at *5 (M.D. La. Feb. 25, 2015) (citing Muthukumar v. Kiel, 478 F. App'x. 156 (5th Cir. 2012)). Thus, the first question is whether Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance. To that end Plaintiff alleges only: “As Defendant's hotels advertise and profit from Government contracts (FEMA) agreements and business, etc.”[17] No. other information or allegations regarding such financial assistance to Defendants is provided. While this allegation fails to specify what type of federal financial assistance Defendants receive, keeping in mind Plaintiff's pro se status and the requirement that...
To continue reading
Request your trial