Detra Barrett v. American Airlines, Inc.
711 F. App'x 761
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Barrett worked for American Airlines from ~1983 to 2012 and filed EEOC/TWC charges in 2011 (color, sex, retaliation) and 2012 (age, retaliation); EEOC issued a right-to-sue on July 7, 2015.
- Barrett sued in Texas state court on September 29, 2015; her Original Petition alleged violations of Texas Labor Code § 21.051 but did not expressly invoke Title VII.
- In January 2017 Barrett filed an Amended Petition in state court expressly seeking Title VII relief; she later removed the case to federal court and repleaded a similar Amended Complaint asserting Title VII claims.
- American moved to dismiss, arguing Title VII claims were filed more than 90 days after receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue and thus untimely; it also argued the Title VII claims could not relate back to the Original Petition under Texas law because the Original was time-barred on state-law grounds.
- The district court granted dismissal; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Barrett first asserted Title VII in the Amended Petition and those claims were untimely and could not relate back under Texas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barrett asserted Title VII claims in her Original Petition (within 90 days of EEOC notice) | Original Petition alleged discrimination and thus reasonably included Title VII; Amended Petition merely clarified federal claim | Original Petition pleaded only Texas Labor Code § 21.051, so Title VII was first asserted in the January 2017 Amended Petition | Court held Title VII claims first appeared in the Amended Petition, not the Original Petition |
| Whether Title VII claims filed in the Amended Petition relate back to the Original Petition under Texas law | Relation back is proper because the substantive claims were the same and amendment merely clarified the federal basis | Texas law bars relation back when the earlier pleading was subject to a limitations plea when filed; Original was time-barred on state-law grounds | Court held relation back unavailable under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.068 because Original was time-barred |
| Whether the Title VII claims were filed within 90 days after receipt of EEOC right-to-sue | Barrett implicitly argued timely because claim was effectively made in the state petition | American argued the 90-day clock started on EEOC notice and Title VII was first asserted in 2017, well outside 90 days | Court applied a three-day receipt presumption and found Title VII was untimely (filed after the 90-day window) |
| Whether tolling or other equitable doctrines save the claims | Barrett did not press a tolling argument on appeal | American contended no tolling applies | Court declined to address tolling because it was not raised; affirmed dismissal on timeliness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co., 744 F.3d 944 (5th Cir.) (standard for dismissals on statute-of-limitations defense)
- Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins, 562 F.3d 724 (5th Cir.) (review standard citation)
- Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.) (limitations defense may be resolved on the pleadings)
- Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 784 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.) (three-day presumption for receipt of EEOC notice)
- Braud v. Transp. Serv. Co. of Ill., 445 F.3d 801 (5th Cir.) (state rules govern when action is commenced in state court)
- Tompkins v. Cyr, 202 F.3d 770 (5th Cir.) (state pleading rules apply to filings made in state court)
- Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex.) (Texas pleading rules: liberal construction in favor of pleader but specific statutory labels limit inference of other causes)