Azadpour v. Blue Sky Sports Center of Keller LP, 3:17-cv-01335

Background

Pro se plaintiff Azadpour sued Blue Sky Sports and multiple individuals after his July 2015 termination, alleging Title VII discrimination (gender, national origin) and retaliation, and asserting supplemental-state defamation claims against certain employees.
Plaintiff alleged his former employer operated at multiple Texas locations and "collectively" employed more than 15 people (a Title VII threshold allegation).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) two individual executives (Brody, Naumann) argued Title VII does not impose individual liability; (2) two employees (the Trautman Defendants) moved to dismiss Title VII claims and challenged the sufficiency of defamation allegations; (3) several Blue Sky entity-defendants challenged the 15-employee allegation and the defamation pleading.
The magistrate judge treated attachments to the complaint as considered for the 12(b)(6) review and construed the complaint liberally because plaintiff is pro se.
Rulings recommended: dismissal with prejudice of Brody and Naumann; dismissal of Title VII claims against Trautmans (plaintiff conceded he did not sue them under Title VII) but grant leave to amend on defamation; denial of dismissal as to Title VII against the Blue Sky entities (15-employee allegation deemed sufficient at this stage) but dismissal of defamation as pleaded with leave to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Individual liability of executives (Brody, Naumann) under Title VII	Brody and Naumann named as CEO/COO in caption; plaintiff did not respond to dismissal argument	Title VII does not impose individual liability on employees; no facts showing their personal involvement	Dismissal granted; claims against them dismissed with prejudice
Defamation by Trautman defendants	Plaintiff alleges Dawna and Lauren called him a misogynist and made other statements (in attachments)	Trautmans argue defamation claims are insufficiently pleaded and Title VII not applicable to them	Title VII claims against Trautmans dismissed; defamation complaint deficient but plaintiff granted leave to amend
Employer threshold (15 employees) for Title VII against Blue Sky entities	Plaintiff alleged collectively employed more than 15 employees and operated in multiple locations; argues business treated as single employer	Entities argue allegation is conclusory and lacks factual support; also raise independent contractor classification	Court denied dismissal on this ground: allegation sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6) at this stage
Amendment and futility of defamation claims	Plaintiff requests leave to amend defamation claims against individual and entity defendants	Defendants contend amendment would be futile or claim not pled with fair notice	Court allowed leave to amend defamation claims; warned that failure to cure within 21 days could lead to dismissal with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausible-pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1995) (complaint must contain direct allegations on material points or allow inference that evidence will be introduced)
Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2011) (documents attached to complaint may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) (individuals generally not liable under Title VII)
Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII in individual or official capacities)
Patton v. Adesa Texas, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 2d 818 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (elements of defamation claim by non-public plaintiff)
Robertson v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App. 2006) (false oral or written statement can be actionable defamation)
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999) (court may dismiss when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 12(b)(6) requires accepting well-pleaded allegations as true)
Berry v. Lee, 428 F. Supp. 2d 546 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (allegation that defendant was an employer within Title VII can suffice at pleading stage)
Rodriguez v. Sarabyn, 129 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 1997) (employer liability for employee-made defamation when statement is referable to employee's duty and made while discharging that duty)
Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate judge reports)