Thomas v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 12 January 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-572
• Citation: 166 F.Supp.3d 714
• Parties: Even Thomas, Plaintiff, v. Beaumont Independent School District, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

166 F.Supp.3d 714

Even Thomas, Plaintiff,
v.
Beaumont Independent School District, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-572

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.

Signed January 12, 2015

166 F.Supp.3d 719

Even Thomas, III, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

James E. Byrom, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos & Green, PC, Houston, TX, for Defendant.

166 F.Supp.3d 720

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KEITH F. GIBLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the consent of the parties, and order of the District Court, this case is before the undersigned United States Magistrate for consideration of all matters and proceedings, including trial and entry of judgment. Pending before the Court is the defendant Beaumont Independent School District's Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(c), and Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion to Continue (doc. # 43).

I. Background

A. Plaintiff's Claims

On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff, Even Thomas, (“plaintiff” or “Thomas”), proceeding pro se,¹ filed suit against the defendant, Beaumont Independent School District (“BISD” or “defendant”). The plaintiff amended his pleading on April 24, 2014. This pleading amended‘ (doc. # 38) is the live pleading now before the Court, which the undersigned will refer to as the amended complaint. A liberal reading of this pleading² shows that the plaintiff is asserting causes of action for (1) violations of his Weingarten rights, (2) violations of his rights against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; (3) violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, (4) discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq. ; and (5) violations of his First Amendment rights. See Amended Complaint (doc. # 38), at pp. 1–2.

B. Defendant's Motion

The defendants seeks dismissal or judgment in its favor based on several grounds. First, BISD contends that the plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata to the extent they are based on the same causes of action already adjudicated in Mr. Thomas' previous lawsuit, Thomas v. Norris, l:07–CV–573, which was also filed here in the Eastern District of Texas. Alternatively, BISD contends that any of Thomas' claims based on events more than two years prior to filing the instant suit should be barred by limitations. BISD next contends that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC. Specifically, defendant avers that Mr. Thomas' claims far exceed the scope of the underlying EEOC charge and, accordingly, all of his claims except for the Title VII retaliation claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant relatedly argues that Thomas has also failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

166 F.Supp.3d 721

Next, BISD argues that the Weingarten claims should be dismissed because Thomas is a public sector state employee who does not have a right to union representation. BISD further contends that the Fourth Amendment “search and seizure” claims fails because plaintiff s complaint does not articulate which constitutional right he alleges was infringed with enough specificity and because he fails to allege facts sufficient to sustain municipal liability under the Fourth Amendment. Relatedly, defendant argues that the due process claims fail because the plaintiff does not articulate the proper vehicle for vindicating these rights.

As for the Title VII and ADA claims, BISD argues that plaintiff has failed to state a claim because he has not specified a disability (under the ADA), he has not suffered an adverse employment action, and he has not established a causal nexus even if he had shown an adverse employment action. Defendant next contends that the plaintiff's hostile work environment allegations also fail because he has not pled a connection between any alleged harassing conduct by BISD and a protected characteristic. BISD also avers that Thomas's retaliation claim must fail because his claims are untimely if based on the 2007 lawsuit and because the claims exceed the scope of the most recent 2013 EEOC charge. Furthermore, BISD points to evidence showing that it did not have knowledge of the instant suit and therefore could not have taken action against Thomas based on the instant claims. BISD also argues that any actions related to Thomas were based on legitimate business decisions.

Finally, BISD argues that Thomas has failed to properly plead a violation of his First Amendment rights. Moreover, it contends that the evidence shows that plaintiff had ample opportunity to voice his concerns about his employment situation and file the necessary grievances and that Thomas cannot establish a cause of action because his claims arise from areas of personal—rather than public—concern.

C. Plaintiff's Responses and Corresponding Briefs

Plaintiff submitted a “motion to deniel [sic]” the defendant's motion to dismiss on July 2, 2014 (doc. # 45), which the Court construes as Thomas' response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. In this document, Mr. Thomas “objects” to BISD's motion by generally arguing that the evidence submitted by BISD in support of the motion was not properly disclosed during the discovery process. Thomas relatedly contends that the defendant and its witnesses are not credible. He also substantively argues that there are genuine material facts upon which a jury could return a verdict in his favor. He then submits approximately 10 pages in which he restates his version of the law under the ADA and Title VII and then presents his subjective version of the facts at issue. See Response (doc. # 45), at pp. 5–14. As exhibits, he attaches two emails exchanged between himself and BISD employee Wayne Wells. He also attaches what appears to be correspondence issued by BISD to all parents in the District on June 2, 2014, addressing a reduction in force and budget issues. None of the evidence attached to Mr. Thomas' response is sworn or verified.

Defendant BISD filed its reply to Thomas' response (doc. # 46) in which it argues that plaintiff has failed to provide any admissible evidence raising a fact question in response to the District's motion to dismiss. BISD contends that the plaintiff “relies solely on unsupported allegations and his subjective beliefs regarding the actions and motives of Beaumont ISD.”

166 F.Supp.3d 722

See BISD Reply (doc. # 46), at p. 2. Defendant goes on by responding to Thomas' allegations regarding discovery and states that the affidavits submitted in support of its motion were properly presented as part of summary judgment practice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Id. Finally, BISD contends that even if the allegations submitted by plaintiff in his response are correct, they are insufficient to create a fact issue on any essential element of his prima facie Title VII and ADA claims. Id. at pp. 5–7.

Plaintiff then filed his reply (doc. # 50), which the defendant moved to strike (doc. # 51). Defendant moved to strike the reply to the extent that it could be construed as a response to defendant's related motion for leave (doc. # 47) to supplement the appendix to its motion for summary judgment to correct a draft affidavit which was inadvertently attached to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's reply (doc. # 50) focuses on arguments regarding the hostile work environment claim. The defendant also submitted a sur-reply (doc. # 51) along with its motion to strike in which BISD argues that plaintiff has failed to rebut the arguments in defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. BISD again argues that the plaintiff's allegations are based solely on his subjective beliefs and that the evidence establishes that BISD's decisions regarding Thomas' employment were made in the best interests of the students, the District, and for legitimate business purposes. See Sur–Reply (doc. # 51), at p.4.

As the defendant points out in its reply, the plaintiff has offered no sworn, verified evidence which controverts the defendant's evidence or supports his claims of discrimination. However, because the Court is required to look at the record as a whole before granting summary judgment and because the plaintiff is pro se, for the sake of completeness the Court takes the all of the information provided and the plaintiffs allegations into account.

D. Background Facts and Summary Judgment Evidence

The undisputed background facts presented by the defendant's motion and attached evidentiary exhibits—incorporated herein by the Court—establish the underlying course of events. Thomas began his employment with BISD in 1993. See Affidavit of Timothy Chargois, former Superintendent of BISD, Exhibit A to Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 43–1). Thomas has worked as a substitute teacher and an elementary school teacher from 1993 to 1999, when he became...