Ejim v. Cummings
1:25-cv-01103
| W.D. Tex. | Jul 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Ngozi Paula Ejim, a Nigerian Christian, worked as a legal assistant for Thomas J. Henry, PLLC from December 19, 2022 until her termination on August 16, 2023.
- Ejim alleges supervisors demanded she remove her Gele (religious/cultural headscarf) and nose piercing, and that she experienced discrimination in terms/conditions of employment based on race, national origin, sex, and religion, and was retaliated against and terminated after complaining.
- Ejim alleges exhaustion of administrative remedies and attached an EEOC right-to-sue letter to her complaint.
- The Magistrate Judge granted Ejim's application to proceed in forma pauperis and her request to file electronically, then conducted the required §1915(e) frivolousness review.
- The Magistrate found Ejim's claims against the employer (Thomas J. Henry, PLLC) sufficiently plausible to proceed and allowed FLSA claims against individual defendants to survive frivolousness review, but recommended dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants.
- The Court ordered the Clerk to issue summons and the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service without prepayment of a service fee; parties have 14 days to object to the Report and Recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) | Ejim cannot afford filing fees without undue hardship | (No opposing filing noted) | Granted: Ejim permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. |
| Frivolousness / plausibility under §1915(e) | Complaint pleads facts permitting inference of unlawful discrimination/retaliation | (Defendant not yet resolving merits at screening) | Survives review: claims against TJH are plausible and not frivolous. |
| Individual liability under Title VII | Ejim included individual supervisors as defendants under Title VII | Individuals are not proper Title VII defendants | Recommended dismissal: Title VII claims against individual defendants should be struck. |
| Individual liability under the FLSA | Ejim alleges individual defendants exercised managerial control and qualify as "employers" under the FLSA | (Defendants may contest employer status on merits) | FLSA claims against individual defendants survive frivolousness review and may proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs v. Jackson, 92 F.4th 566 (5th Cir. 2024) (IFP determination must be based solely on economic criteria)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (movant need not be absolutely destitute to proceed IFP)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard for pleading)
- Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010) (court assesses whether complaint states a legally cognizable, plausible claim)
- Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1984) (individuals with managerial responsibility may be "employers" under the FLSA)
- Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (individuals are not liable under Title VII)
- Weathers v. Houston Methodist Hosp., 116 F.4th 324 (5th Cir. 2024) (reaffirming that Title VII does not impose individual liability)
- Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) (court may impose court costs at conclusion of a case even if IFP status was granted)