Joanne Stone v. Louisiana Dept of Revenue
590 F. App'x 332
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Stone, African American, worked as Revenue Tax Auditor for Louisiana Department of Revenue, in New Orleans then Houston; EEOC charges filed in 2010 and 2012, with right-to-sue rights issued; 2012 suit for constructive discharge; amended 2013 to include discrimination, harassment, retaliation; supervisor Lockley accused of targeting Stone, assigning lower-value desk audits, delaying approval of audit hours, and limiting telecommuting; alleged racially derogatory remarks and hostile environment; resignation in March-April 2012 and final day April 9, 2012; district court dismissed federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defamation claim; appeal seeks reversal of some dismissals and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata applicability | Stone argues prior unemployment-benefits suit does not bar current Title VII claims. | Department contends prior judgment forecloses current claims. | Not barred; res judicata not satisfied. |
| Exhaustion and timeliness of 2013 EEOC charge | Stone timely pursued 2013 charge continuing from earlier alleged discrimination. | 2013 charge untimely and not exhaustively pursued; not reasonably within EEOC scope. | Untimely; no exhaustion for later claims. |
| Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard for Title VII claims | Stone should survive if facts show direct discrimination or plausible claims. | Standard requires prima facie proof elements at pleading; domain misapplied. | Pleading standard correctly applied; discrimination/harassment claims not plausibly stated; retaliation claim viable. |
| Retaliation and defamation claims against DOR | Stone asserted retaliatory actions post-2010 and state-law defamation claims. | Retaliation claims insufficient to show adverse action; defamation扱 not independently analyzed here. | Retaliation claim reversed; defamation claim remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (claims timeliness under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1))
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (rejects heightened pleading standards for Title VII claims at summary dismissal stage)
- Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion scope; notice to employer depends on EEOC investigation)
- Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970) (fact-driven scope of EEOC investigations permissible broader claims)
- Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 1998) (continuing violations doctrine framework for timeliness)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard for adverse action is broader than discrimination standard)
- Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2013) (pleading not required to prove prima facie case at Rule 12(b)(6) stage)