Joseph Chhim v. University of Texas at Austin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16301
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Joseph Chhim applied for a Building Services Supervisor (Night Shift) position at the University of Texas at Austin and was notified on March 7, 2014 that he was not hired.
- Chhim alleges age discrimination under the ADEA and race/color/national-origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, claiming a Hispanic applicant with long custodial experience was hired instead.
- The University moved to dismiss; the district court dismissed the ADEA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) and dismissed the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims for failure to state a plausible claim.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo the Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissals and evaluated Chhim’s pleadings liberally as a pro se plaintiff but required factual allegations sufficient to state plausible claims.
- The court concluded Texas sovereign immunity bars ADEA suits against the state university, Chhim failed to plead facts showing the hired applicant was less qualified or similarly situated (so disparate treatment implausible), and Chhim failed to exhaust or identify protected activity that could plausibly support a retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA claim — sovereign immunity | Chhim asserted age-discrimination claim under ADEA against the University | University argued it is a state entity protected by sovereign immunity and ADEA abrogation does not apply | ADEA claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Texas sovereign immunity bars the suit |
| Title VII disparate treatment (race/color/national origin) | Chhim alleged University hired a Hispanic applicant instead of him due to his Cambodian origin/race/color; alleged employer reason was pretextual | University maintained it legitimately chose a more qualified applicant (writing/communication skills and experience) | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible disparate-treatment claim; complaint lacked facts showing hired applicant was less qualified or similarly situated |
| Title VII retaliation (timing and exhaustion) | Chhim claimed non-hire was retaliatory for grievances/charges he filed | University argued adverse action occurred before many grievances/charges and that Chhim failed to exhaust EEOC claims for earlier complaints | Dismissed: retaliation based on grievances filed after the non-hire is implausible; claims tied to pre-March 2014 complaints were unexhausted before the EEOC |
| Ex parte Young / remedy against state officials | Chhim asserted exception to sovereign immunity (Ex parte Young) | University pointed out Ex parte Young requires naming individual state officials in official capacities, which Chhim did not do | Ex parte Young did not apply; Chhim did not sue individual state officials in their official capacities |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to state a claim)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity under ADEA)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (exception to sovereign immunity requires official-capacity suits against state officers)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (clarifies official-capacity suits for prospective relief)
- Raj v. La. State Univ., 714 F.3d 322 (pleading standards for disparate-treatment claims; Ex parte Young requirements)
- Machete Prods., L.L.C. v. Page, 809 F.3d 281 (de novo review of Rule 12(b) dismissals)
- Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (liberal standard for pro se pleadings)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (EEOC exhaustion and scope of investigation)