Sims v. La. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-2609 |
| Parties | SHANWANDA SIMS v. LOUISIANA STATE, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion[1] by defendants, the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Health (“LDH”) and the Florida Parishes Human Services Authority (“FPHSA”)[2] (collectively “defendants”), to dismiss pro se plaintiff Shanwanda Sims' (“Sims”) claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Sims opposes[3] the motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.
Sims is an African American female,[4] who has been employed with the FPHSA as a licensed practical nurse since May 28 2013.[5] Sims initially filed an online inquiry with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on June 23, 2020. She then filed a “Charge of Discrimination” with the EEOC on December 28, 2020. In her EEOC charge, Sims alleged that she took Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave due to a medical condition, but “[t]he use and frequency of [her] leave did not set [sic] well with [her] employer and ultimately resulted in an unjustified negative evaluation.”[6] After she attempted to file a “grievance,” Sims further alleged, she began “experiencing retaliation, on-going targeting, harassment, and increased surveillance by management.”[7] She then alleged that, “[m]ost recently (on 3/6/2020), [she] was denied accommodations under [the] ADA.”[8] While Sims did check the box for “race” in answer to the question of why she thought she was discriminated against on the EEOC charge form,[9] the factual allegations included in her EEOC charge did not mention racial discrimination.
On February 25, 2022, the EEOC issued its determination related to her charge, stating that “[t]he EEOC will not proceed further with its investigation and makes no determination about whether further investigation would establish violations” occurred.[10] She received notice of her right to sue on May 13, 2022.[11] Sims filed her complaint[12] in this Court on August 9, 2022. In her complaint, Sims alleges she has been subject to employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.[13] Specifically, Sims' complaint alleges that (1) she was denied accommodations under the ADA on March 6, 2020 due to her race;[14] (2) she was issued reprimands between March 12, 2018 and June 22, 2020 for mistakes that white employees were not punished for committing;[15] (3) between February 15, 2017 and October 31, 2018, she was “illegally harassed” for “missed work that was covered by intermittent FMLA[,]” and for outstanding unsigned patient notes due to her race;[16] (4) she received poor performance evaluations between September 20, 2016 and December 14, 2020 based on her race, as her “white co-workers [were] not being held to the same accountability” as Sims;[17] (5) on “various dates,” Sims' supervisor discriminated against her based on Sims' race;[18] (6) on “various dates,” she was reprimanded for having outstanding unsigned patient notes due to her race;[19] and (7) she is not being paid “at the same or equitable pay rate as [her] white, Caucasian counterpart.”[20]
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claims.” In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prod. Liab. Litig., 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2012). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), “a claim is ‘properly dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate' the claim.” Id. (citation omitted). Courts are to consider a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional argument before addressing any other arguments on the merits. Id. (citing Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001)).
When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.” Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Tammany Par., ex rel. Davis v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 556 F.3d 307, 315 (5th Cir. 2009)). “The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.” Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. When a court determines that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an action, the action is dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., id.; Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “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 (2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted). A claim is facially plausible “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. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Culbertson v. Lykos, 790 F.3d 608, 616 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
A complaint is insufficient if it contains “only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotations omitted). It “must provide the defendant with fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005) (internal quotations omitted). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court views the complaint “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) states, in pertinent part, that “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” The motion must be made prior to filing a responsive pleading and “must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). A court should only grant a motion for more definite statement when the complaint is “so excessively vague and ambiguous to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it.” Phillips v. ABB Combustion Eng'g, Inc., No. 13-594, 2013 WL 3155224, at *2 (E.D. La. June 19, 2013) (Feldman, J.); accord Koerner v. Vigilant Ins. Co., No. 16-13319, 2016 WL 4728902, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2016) (Africk, J.). “If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).
i. Sims' EEOC Charge Did Not Allege Violations of Title VII
“Before a plaintiff may file suit in federal court under either Title VII or the ADA, the plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.” Jennings v. Towers Watson, 11 F.4th 335, 342 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Melgar v. T.B. Butler Publ'g Co., 931 F.3d 375, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)). “Exhaustion occurs when the plaintiff files a timely charge with the EEOC and receives a statutory notice of right to sue.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, 96 F.3d 787, 788-89 (5th Cir.1996)); see also Cormier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 145 F.Supp.3d 666, 667 (W.D. La. 2015) (“Before instituting a Title VII action in federal district court, a private plaintiff must file an EEOC complaint against the discriminating party within 180 days of the alleged discrimination and receive statutory notice of the right-to-sue the respondent named in the charge.”). While “administrative exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement, it is still a requirement.” Stroy v. Gibson on behalf of Dep't of Veterans Affs., 896 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2018) () (emphasis in original).
“The scope of...
To continue reading
Request your trial