968 F.3d 544
5th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Hinkley and Rice (both over 40) were hired by Envoy as trainee pilots in 2017, were steered toward the more difficult EMB-175 training, were told they should quit, and allege constructive discharge and age discrimination (ADEA and Texas Labor Code).
- Plaintiffs filed suit in Texas state court (Kendall County); Envoy removed to the wrong federal district (Northern District of Texas), citing forum-selection clauses in employment letters and asserting counterclaims for repayment of signing bonuses.
- Plaintiffs never moved to remand; the case was shuffled between the Northern and Western Districts (including a §1631 transfer) and ultimately returned to the Northern District under §1404(a) to honor the forum-selection clause.
- The Northern District dismissed plaintiffs’ ADEA and Texas Labor Code claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly plead administrative exhaustion and for failing to allege a facially neutral policy producing disparate impact; the court dismissed the Texas Labor Code claim with prejudice and remanded remaining state-law claims to state court.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenged (1) the propriety of removal/§1631 transfer and (2) the characterization of dismissal of the Texas Labor Code claim (Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice v. Rule 12(b)(1) without prejudice), but do not contest the substantive exhaustion ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal to the Northern District (wrong federal district) jurisdictional, requiring remand? | Removal to wrong district divested Northern District of jurisdiction; case should be remanded to state court. | Removal to wrong district was a procedural error; waived because plaintiffs failed to timely move to remand. | Error was procedural, not jurisdictional; plaintiffs waived objection by not timely moving to remand. |
| Was the Northern District’s sua sponte §1631 transfer reversible error? | Northern District erred by transferring to Western District rather than remanding. | Transfer issue rendered moot because Western District later transferred the case back to Northern District. | Issue is moot given intervening transfer back; no reversible error. |
| Did plaintiffs plausibly plead administrative exhaustion for ADEA and Texas Labor Code claims? | Plaintiffs say they exhausted by filing a TWC charge on 11/30/2018 and attached documents. | Envoy says plaintiffs failed to allege exhaustion sufficiently. | Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege exhaustion; dismissal of federal ADEA and related Texas claim proper. |
| Is Tex. Lab. Code §21.202’s 180‑day filing requirement jurisdictional (requiring 12(b)(1) dismissal without prejudice)? | §21.202 is jurisdictional and strips courts of power over unexhausted claims; dismissal should be for lack of jurisdiction. | §21.202 is mandatory but not jurisdictional; it is an affirmative defense and supports dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). | §21.202 is mandatory but not jurisdictional; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Sonny’s Old Land Corp., 937 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1991) (removal to wrong venue was waiverable procedural error; court retained subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 1994) (removal to wrong division is procedural, not jurisdictional)
- Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1997) (failure to comply with §1441(a) geographic removal requirements is procedural)
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum‑selection clauses are enforced by §1404(a) transfer, not by removal)
- In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co. v. Soderbeck, 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2010) (Texas Supreme Court presumes statutory prerequisites are not jurisdictional absent clear legislative intent)
- Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Texas LLC, 753 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2014) (applying In re USAA to hold right-to-sue letter receipt under Texas law is not jurisdictional)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (Title VII filing requirements are not jurisdictional constraints on federal courts)
- Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. 1996) (discussed historical Texas treatment of statutory filing deadlines as jurisdictional)