Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ryan's Pointe Houston, LLC
4:15-cv-02782
S.D. Tex.Jun 10, 2025Background:
- The EEOC filed suit against Ryan’s Pointe Houston, LLC and Advantage Property Management, LLC under Title VII, alleging Magali Villalobos was fired based on sex (pregnancy) and national origin (Mexican).
- Defendants answered by asserting affirmative defenses, including fraud, waiver, and unclean hands, claiming Villalobos misrepresented her qualifications and whereabouts.
- EEOC moved for partial summary judgment, arguing defendants had not properly pleaded or supported their fraud and after-acquired evidence defenses.
- Magistrate Judge Bennett recommended dismissing the fraud defense for inadequate pleading.
- The district court adopted the recommendation; neither party objected to dismissing the fraud defense, but a dispute persisted regarding whether these defenses could be raised at trial.
- The court issued this order clarifying defendants are precluded from pursuing fraud or after-acquired evidence defenses at trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Fraud Defense | Defendants failed to plead fraud with required specificity and injury elements. | Villalobos misrepresented facts; misrepresentations justify fraud claim. | Fraud defense not adequately pleaded; cannot be raised. |
| After-Acquired Evidence | Defense was not pled; not given fair notice as required by rules. | Alleged misrepresentations would justify termination if known earlier. | Defense unpled and unsupported; cannot be raised at trial. |
| Waiver of Objection to M&R | Defendants waived de novo review by not objecting to recommendation timely. | No distinct argument on this waiver made by defendants. | Waiver precludes further challenge to dismissal of defense. |
| Adequacy of Pleading | Pleading lacked factual particularity and did not satisfy Rule 9(b). | Defendants asserted summary points, but specifics missing. | Dismissed for lack of fair notice and particularity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2008) (explains specificity required for pleading affirmative defenses)
- Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) (details fair notice standard for affirmative defenses)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (defines after-acquired evidence doctrine and limits on damages)
- Williams v. WMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 1997) (sets out particularity required for fraud pleading under Rule 9(b))
- Fluorine On Call, Ltd. v. Fluorogas Ltd., 380 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2004) (Texas law elements of fraud)