Williams v. Magnolia Cmty. Servs.

Decision Date12 July 2022
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION 21-2200
PartiesANGELA WILLIAMS v. MAGNOLIA COMMUNITY SERVICES INC., ET AL
CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)

SECTION “B” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are plaintiff's Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1-1) defendant's motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 9) plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 18) defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 21), plaintiff's second amended complaint (Rec. Doc. 26), and defendant's supplemental memorandum (Rec. Doc. 29). For the following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 9) is DENIED, retaining plaintiff's claims for hostile work environment, disparate treatment, wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge, and interference under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 21) is DISMISSED as moot.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This lawsuit arises from Magnolia Community Services' (“Magnolia” or Defendant) alleged wrongful termination of Angela Williams (“Williams” or Plaintiff) because of her race and sex. Rec. Doc. 26 (Second Amended Complaint). Williams, a fifty-eight- year-old African American woman, began working at Magnolia on or about September 18, 2013. Id. Between that date and April 16, 2021, when she was allegedly wrongfully terminated, plaintiff worked as a direct service personnel worker and/or a staff worker. Id.

During her employment at Magnolia, plaintiff asserts that she was subjected to disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, racial and sexual harassment, and retaliation. Id. According to plaintiff, all the above-alleged treatment was due to her status as an African American, a woman, and a person over the age of forty. Id. Williams alleges she suffered disparate treatment from defendant when it utilized certain “employment practices” which disproportionately impacted her ability to succeed as an employee. Rec. Doc. 26. Specifically, she asserts she suffered disparate treatment at the hands of defendant's employees Ricky Hebert, Donna Lowey, and Jennifer Hebert. Id. She claims that she was highly scrutinized on a regular basis because of her race. Id. Additionally, plaintiff presents that Magnolia did not allow her to take breaks like similarly situated Caucasian co-workers because of her race. Id.

Williams also alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment on numerous occasions when she was frequently called the “n-word” by her fellow co-workers. Id. The atmosphere at Magnolia allegedly became even more aggressive and discriminatory when plaintiff was informed that she was not allowed to use the workplace restroom because of her race. Rec. Doc. 26. Williams claims she felt humiliated on several occasions when she was forced to use the bathroom on herself because she was denied access to a restroom or a break to relieve herself. Id. Williams alleges she was also subjected to numerous physical assaults, and verbal abuse because of her race. Id.

Additionally, plaintiff alleges that Magnolia violated the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) when it required her to return to work during her designated FMLA leave period. Id. According to Williams, she followed all policies and protocols established by Magnolia to be entitled to FMLA leave. Id. Plaintiff also presents that her unpaid leave was set to commence on March 20, 2021 and cease on April 30, 2021. Rec. Doc. 26. Nonetheless, defendant allegedly interfered with plaintiff's designated leave time and forced her to return to work on April 16, 2021. Id. Defendant then allegedly preceded to terminate her employment on that date. Id.

Williams alleges she reported her co-worker's behavior to defendant along with her oppositions to defendant's discriminatory practices, but Magnolia ignored her; and instead, choose to retaliate against her by terminating her employment. Id. Plaintiff filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and received her right to sue letter on August 11, 2021. Id.

On or about November 22, 2021, plaintiff filed suit in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, alleging both state and federal causes of action. Rec. Doc. 1. On November 30, 2021, Magnolia filed a notice of removal, asserting this Court has federal question jurisdiction because plaintiff asserted claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the FMLA. Id.

On December 28, 2021, defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Rec. Doc. 9. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to file her response to defendant's motion. Rec. Doc. 13. The Court granted her motion, extending plaintiff's deadline to file a responsive pleading to February 3, 2022. Rec. Doc. 15. Plaintiff did not file an opposition by the previously mentioned deadline. Instead, on February 7, 2022, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint realleging several assertions from her original complaint. Rec. Doc. 20. On February 21, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint, raising the same arguments from its previously filed motion to dismiss. Rec. Doc. 21.

On March 29, 2022, the Court received oral argument on defendant Magnolia community Services, Inc.'s motions to dismiss (Rec. Docs. 9, 21). See Rec. Doc. 25. After consideration of the parties' arguments, and for orally assigned reasons, the motions were taken under advisement. Id. Plaintiff was instructed to file a second amended and supplemental complaint, articulating in very specific terms her factual allegations. Id. On April 19, 2022, plaintiff filed the requisite second amending and supplemental complaint. Rec. Doc. 26. Defendant was also instructed to provide supplemental briefing after receiving plaintiff's newly filed complaint. Rec. Doc. 25. On May 26, 2022, the defendant filed its reply in support of dismissal. Rec. Doc. 29.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. 12(b)(6) Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff's complaint “must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Varela v. Gonzalez, 773 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (internal quotes omitted)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996).

However, the Court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). [C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). A fortiori, a complaint may be dismissed when it appears “beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts” that would entitle him to prevail. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 560-61, 127 S.Ct. 1955; First Am. Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Bus. Tech., Inc., 178 F.Supp.3d 390, 399 (E.D. La. 2016). However, the Fifth Circuit has stated that motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are “viewed with disfavor and [are]...rarely granted.” Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir.2009).

B. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Applicable to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

In discerning whether a motion to dismiss is applicable to an amended complaint, the question is whether the amended complaint is so different from the original complaint as to make the motion to dismiss moot. See In re R.E. Loans, L.L.C., 553 Fed.Appx. 453, 456 (5th Cir.2014); Cousin v. St. Tammany Par. Jail, No. CIV.A. 14-1514, 2015 WL 5017113 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2015). A motion to dismiss need not be denied as moot when it attacks the original complaint for deficiencies that persist in the amended complaint.

Williams' Second Amended Complaint is not so far removed from her initial complaint as to prevent the court from applying Defendant's first motion to dismiss to the present complaint. First, plaintiff's second amended complaint does not raise any new causes of action; instead, she merely reasserts may of the same allegations and claims she raised in her initial complaint. Second, defendant contends in its supplemental memorandum that the deficiencies previously raised in its motion to dismiss persist in plaintiff's second amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will apply the arguments raised by defendant's motion and supplemental memorandum to the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Rountree v. Dyson, 892 F.3d 681, 683-84 (5th Cir. 2018) (The court may consider a motion to dismiss “as being addressed to the amended pleading”); Greene v. DeMoss, No. 3:20-CV-00578, 2020 WL 7755690 (W.D. La. Dec. 11, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20-CV-00578, 2020 WL 7755655 (W.D. La. Dec. 29, 2020) (applying defendants' motions to dismiss to plaintiff's amended complaint.)

C. Whether Plaintiff's Claims Should be Dismissed

In Magnolia's supplemental briefing, it admitted that plaintiff has “likely alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for retaliatory discharge under Title VII and Section 1981, as well as a claim for interference under the FMLA.” Rec. Doc. 29 at p. 3. Because this Court agrees with the defendant's assessment, we will focus on the plaintiff's remaining claims still in dispute.

i ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT