O'Neal v. Cargill, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 April 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-7183
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
• Parties: Quinton O'Neal et al. v. Cargill, Inc. d/b/a Grain & Oil Seed Supply Chain

178 F.Supp.3d 408

Quinton O'Neal et al.

v.Cargill, Inc. d/b/a Grain & Oil Seed Supply Chain

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-7183

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed April 11, 2016

Filed April 12, 2016

Dante J. Butler, Rome Butler & Rome, New Orleans, LA, for Quinton O'Neal et al.

Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr., Jeffrey Kyle Coreil, Victoria Viator Theriot, Neunerpate, Lafayette, LA, for Cargill, Inc. d/b/a Grain & Oil Seed Supply Chain.

ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION

JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.

, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is an employment discrimination action brought by two African-American plaintiffs, Quinton O'Neal and Demon Melancon, against their former employer, Cargill, Inc. The complaint asserts claims of retaliation, discrimination (in O'Neal's case, apparently, but not expressly, based on race) and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ; and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, La. Rev. Stat. § 23:301 et seq. Complaint, Record Doc. No. 1. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings and entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) upon written consent of all parties. Record Doc. No. 13.

Cargill filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)

; Motion for Award of Damages, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs; or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever for Improper Joinder of Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 20. Record Doc. No. 6. The motion is supported by unverified copies of each plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the EEOC's notices of dismissal to each plaintiff. Defendant seeks dismissal of (1) all of O'Neal's claims as untimely, (2) Melancon's claims under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law as untimely, and (3) Melancon's Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. Cargill does not seek dismissal of Melancon's Title VII race discrimination claim. Alternatively, if the court does not dismiss all of O'Neal's claims, defendant asks the court to sever his claims from Melancon's because they do not arise out of the same occurrence or series of occurrences and do not present common questions of law or facts. If the court dismisses any of the claims, Cargill requests an award of damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred as a result of the dismissed claims, pursuant to Title VII and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law.

Plaintiffs filed a timely memorandum in opposition, supported by two unverified exhibits regarding O'Neal's claims and one unverified exhibit regarding Melancon's claims. Plaintiffs argue that their Title VII claims were timely filed and that their complaint sufficiently alleges all of their claims. They do not contest the authenticity of the exhibits attached to Cargill's motion. Record Doc. No. 10.

Defendant filed a timely reply memorandum that includes a new, unverified exhibit responsive to O'Neal's exhibits. Cargill does not object to the authenticity of plaintiffs' exhibits, but asks that its motion be converted to a summary judgment motion if the court considers plaintiffs' exhibits and its own new exhibit. Record Doc. No. 11.

Having considered the complaint, the record, the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, and for the following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment as to O'Neal's claims only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows.

I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Under this rule, as recently clarified by the Supreme Court,

“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” A claim for relief is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” A claim for relief is implausible on its face when “the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.”

Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir.2011)

(quoting 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) )).

“The Supreme Court's decisions in Iqbal

and Twombly...did not alter the long-standing requirement that when evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept[ ] all well-pleaded facts as true and view[ ] those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 803 n. 44 (quotation omitted); accord Murchison Capital Partners, L.P. v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 625 Fed.Appx. 617, 618 n. 1 (5th Cir.2015) (citing Wood v. Moss, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 2065 n. 5, 188 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2014) ). “With respect to any well-pleaded allegations ‘a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’ ” Jabary v. City of Allen, 547 Fed.Appx. 600, 604 (5th Cir.2013) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ).

Generally, a court should not dismiss an action for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)

without giving plaintiff “at least one chance to amend.” Hernandez v. Ikon Ofc. Solutions, Inc., 306 Fed.Appx. 180, 182 (5th Cir.2009) ; accord Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (5th Cir.2002).

However, that general rule does not apply if amendment would be futile. Townsend v. BAC Home Loans Serv'g, L.P., 461 Fed.Appx. 367, 372 (5th Cir.2011)

; Jaso v. The Coca Cola Co., 435 Fed.Appx. 346, 351–52 (5th Cir.2011) ; Rio Grande Royalty Co. v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 620 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir.2010) ; Stokes v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 367 Fed.Appx. 545, 550 (5th Cir.2010). Futility in this context means “that the amended complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted....[Thus,] to determine futility, we will apply the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6).” Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir.2000) (quotations and citations omitted); accord Fenghui Fan v. Brewer, 377 Fed.Appx. 366, 367 (5th Cir.2010).

Cargill supports its motion to dismiss with copies of each plaintiff's discrimination charge filed with the EEOC and the EEOC's notices of dismissal. Defendant's Exhs. A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2. None of these documents were attached to plaintiffs' complaint. Ordinarily, the court is “confined to reviewing the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, including its attachments, when... ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

.” Murchison Capital Partners, L.P. v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 625 Fed.Appx. 617, 618 n. 1 (5th Cir.2015) (citing Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir.2014) ). If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion presents exhibits outside the pleadings that are “not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

However,

[i]t is well-established that “[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim.” “In so attaching, the defendant merely assists the plaintiff in establishing the basis of the suit, and the court in making the elementary determination of whether a claim has been stated.”

The documents at issue here—[plaintiff's] two EEOC Charges—were referenced in her complaint and are central to her claim. Their contents are essential to determining (i) whether the EEOC and [Louisiana Commission on Human Rights] Charges were filed within the applicable statute of limitations, and (ii) whether the allegations contained in those complaints allege a colorable violation of Title VII. These issues are central to [plaintiff's] pleadings, and her failure to include them does not allow her complaint to bypass [defendant's] motion to dismiss unexamined.

Carter v. Target Corp., 541 Fed.Appx. 413, 416–17 (5th Cir.2013)

(quoting Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir.2000) ) (citation omitted).

In the instant case, plaintiffs neither referred to the EEOC documents in their complaint nor attached any of the EEOC documents. If plaintiffs had referred to these essential documents in their complaint, the court could consider defendant's exhibits under clear Fifth Circuit precedent regarding a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss. Nonetheless, the court can take judicial notice of the EEOC documents, which are public records whose authenticity is not disputed. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 269 n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) ; Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1346 n. 6 (5th Cir.1994) ; Davenport v. HansaWorld USA, Inc., 23 F.Supp.3d 679, 686 n. 1 (S.D.Miss.2014) ; Thomas v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., No. 13–0779, 2014 WL 545862, at *2 n. 5 (W.D.La. Feb. 10, 2014) ; Tucker v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 12–2446, 2013 WL 1588067, at *2, *6 (E.D.La. Apr. 11, 2013) (citing Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir.2011) ) (additional citations omitted). Accordingly, the court can consider the documents submitted by Cargill without converting its motion into one for summary judgment.

On the other hand, plaintiffs' three exhibits are not essential to their employment discrimination claims. Plaintiffs' Exhibits A and B are letters from the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) regarding O'Neal's grievance filed with that agency after Cargill...