Goode v. Early Encounters, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-CV-152-RPM |
| Parties | ESSIE GOODE, PLAINTIFF v. EARLY ENCOUNTERS, INC., DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant Early Encounters, Inc.'s (“Early Encounters”) motion for partial dismissal of Plaintiff Essie Goode's (“Goode's”) Complaint. Doc. [11]. In support, Early Encounters first argues that Goode failed to exhaust claims of race-related discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and hostile work environment. Id., at 2-4. Second, Early Encounters argues that Goode failed to state a claim under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”). Id., at 4-5. Goode has filed a response in opposition. Doc. [14].
On August 12, 2020, Goode filed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire containing the following allegations. Doc. [14], Ex. 1. In the 1990s, Early Encounters hired Goode, who is African American, as a teacher. Doc. [14], Ex. 1, at 1. By early 2020, Goode had risen to the position of Assistant Director. Ibid. In March 2020, however, Goode was laid off after Early Encounters temporarily closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id., Ex. 1, at 10. On May 13, 2020, Early Encounters Director Lynn Robinson (“Robinson”) emailed laid-off staff, including Goode, to inform them that Early Encounters intended to reopen on June 15, 2020. Ibid. She added that staff would need to reapply because Early Encounters would only bring back some employees due to pandemic-related economic costs. Doc. [14], Ex. 1, at 12.
Goode reapplied for her former position and was rehired. Doc. [14], Ex. 1, at 5. After being rehired, Goode discovered that she needed emergency thyroid surgery. Ibid. As part of her preoperative care, Goode was directed to obtain a COVID-19 test and quarantine before surgery. Ibid. On June 15, 2020, Goode received a COVID-19 test; on that same date, Robinson asked Goode to come into work. Ibid. In anticipation of her impending surgery, Goode declined. Ibid. On June 17, 2020, Early Encounters, through Robinson, sent a letter to Goode that purported to revoke its offer to rehire her. Id., Ex. 1, at 2, 5, 9. According to Goode, Early Encounters discriminated against her because of her impending surgery. Doc. [12], Ex. 1.
Goode further alleged that Early Encounters' motivation for firing her was not limited to disability. She also asserted that Early Encounters fired her based on race. Doc. [14], Ex. 1, at 23. To support this accusation, Goode alleged that Robinson stated that Early Encounters was “racial[ly] imbalanced” because it employed “too many” black employees. Id., Ex. 1, at 2, 7, 22. Goode also identified a white coworker, Rose Brown (“Brown”), who injured her foot around the same time as Goode underwent surgery. Id., at 2, 5. Brown was unable to return to work until August 2020-i.e., for a longer period of time than Goode. Ibid. Unlike Goode, however, Brown was not fired. Ibid.
On November 3, 2020, Goode filed a verified formal Charge of Discrimination (“formal charge”). Doc. [12], Ex. 1. In the charge, Goode alleged that Early Encounters discriminated against her based on race and disability. Ibid. She also checked the box for “retaliation.” Ibid. In full, Goode stated:
In or around 1992, I was hired as a [t]eacher. I most recently held the position of Assistant Director. I was discharged because of my disability and race. I am
African American. On or about June 12, 2020, I informed the Director, Lynn Robinson, of my need for emergency surgery. As part of the pre-op process, I was instructed to take a COVID test and quarantine until the scheduled surgery on June 17, 2020. The Respondent refused to provide an accommodation (leave) and I was discharged on or about June 19, 2020. I was discriminated against in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
[Doc. [12], Ex. 1.]
After the EEOC terminated its investigation, Goode received a right to sue letter. Doc. [1], Ex. 2.
In her Complaint, Goode set forth the following factual allegations. Doc. [1]. In 2019, Early Encounters hired Robinson as a Director; it “reaffirmed” her position in February 2020. Doc. [1], at 3. While Goode was an Assistant Director, she was assigned duties falling within Robinson's job description. Id., at 3-4.
In 2019, Robinson allegedly told nonparty Carly Owen (“Owen”) that Early Encounters' staff was “racial[ly] imbalance[d].” Doc. [1], at 3. According to Robinson, Early Encounters employed too many blacks and not enough whites; Robinson “plan[ned] to change” this racial imbalance. Ibid. Owen reported these statements to her superior, Goode, who filed a grievance with Early Encounters' Board president Melissa Thompson. Ibid. After Goode filed the grievance, Robinson allegedly created a hostile work environment for Goode. Ibid. For example, Robinson allegedly threatened to fire Goode's granddaughter, who is black, and replace her with a white teacher. Id., at 3-4.
Subsequently, Goode alleges, Robinson made statements and took actions that betrayed a discriminatory attitude. First, Robinson berated minority teachers in front of students and the public. Doc. [1], at 4. She did not act in this manner with white teachers. Ibid. Robinson also allegedly stated “bless your cotton-picking heart” to a child. Id., at 4.
In February 2020, Tasha Betts (“Betts”), a black teacher, got into an altercation with Tina MacDonald (“MacDonald”), a white teacher. Id., at 4-5. After the incident, Robinson decided that only Betts should be terminated; Robinson directed Goode to fire Betts. Id., at 4. Goode refused to do so on the grounds that firing Betts would be discriminatory unless MacDonald was also fired. Id., at 4. Thereafter, Robinson allegedly informed Pastor Bruce Case (“Pastor Case”) about Goode's refusal. Id., at 5. Pastor Case then stripped Goode of her supervisory responsibilities. Ibid.
In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court “must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, and [] view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” McCartney v. First City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “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.” Ibid. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, [however,] supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice[]” as factual allegations and are viewed instead as legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Ibid. Finally, the Court's review encompasses: “‘the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.'” Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).[1]
Before proceeding with a Title VII or Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim in federal court, a plaintiff must exhaust his or her administrative remedies. Davis, 893 F.3d at 303. To exhaust, “a plaintiff must file a timely charge with the EEOC and then receive a notice of the right to sue.” Ernst v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 1 F.4th 333, 337 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Additionally, “a claim generally must arise out of the plaintiff's EEOC charge.” Filer v. Donley, 690 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2012). “When analyzing whether a plaintiff has exhausted a claim, . . . ‘the scope of an EEOC complaint should be construed liberally.'” Melgar v. T.B. Butler Publ'g Co., Inc., 931 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 788 (5th Cir. 2006)). “On the other hand, a primary purpose of Title VII is to trigger the investigatory and conciliatory procedures of the EEOC, in attempt to achieve non-judicial resolution of employment discrimination claims.” Ibid. “To balance these considerations, ‘this court interprets what is properly embraced in review of a Title[] VII claim somewhat broadly, not solely by the scope of the administrative charge itself, but by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.'” Jennings v. Towers Watson, 11 F.4th 335, 342 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). To make this determination, the Court engages in a “fact-intensive analysis of the statement given by the plaintiff in the administrative charge, and look slightly beyond its four corners, to its substance rather than its label.” Patton v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc., 874 F.3d 437, 443 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Before addressing the merits of Early Encounters' motion, the Court briefly addresses whether Goode's EEOC Intake Questionnaire is a charge.[2] Under Supreme Court precedent, an EEOC Intake Questionnaire may qualify as a charge if two prerequisites are met. Fed. Express Corp. v Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 1158, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008). First, the EEOC Intake Questionnaire must “satisfy the EEOC's charge-filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial