King v. LIFE SCHOOL, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88841

Background

Lora King, African American former Life School employee, was informed in June 2009 that her employment would not continue for the next school year.
King filed an EEOC charge in September 2009 alleging race discrimination under Title VII; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter in October 2009.
On January 11, 2010, King filed this federal action alleging Title VII race discrimination and retaliation, and ADEA age discrimination, against Life School, its superintendent, and principal.
By June 2010, the principal and superintendent’s motion to dismiss King’s Title VII claims against them was granted with prejudice; the school later moved for summary judgment on the race claim.
In May 2011 the court granted summary judgment on the Title VII race discrimination claim against the school, leaving retaliation, gender discrimination, age discrimination, and USERRA claims pending.
The court granted Life School’s Rule 12(b)(1)/(h)(3) motion to dismiss remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to exhaust, with a potential amendment window for new claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion defeats jurisdiction for certain Title VII/ADEA claims	King exhausted all proper claims via EEOC charge.	King failed to exhaust age, gender, and retaliation claims; exhaustion affects jurisdiction.	Exhaustion is a prerequisite; claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion.
Whether USERRA and gender discrimination claims are pled/pleadable	USERRA and gender claims were raised in complaint or pleadings.	No adequate pleading for USERRA or gender discrimination; lack of exhaustion supports dismissal.	USERRA claim dismissed for failure to plead; gender claim dismissed for exhaustion.
Whether new § 1981/§ 1983 claims may be added via amendment	New racial discrimination/retaliation claims were raised in response; should be allowed to amend.	New claims lack factual support and procedural compliance; amendment should be denied or delayed.	New claims may be pursued only by a proper Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) amendment; court allowed 14-day window to file a proper motion.

Key Cases Cited

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (Fifth Cir., 2001) (burden of proving federal jurisdiction rests with the party invoking federal court)
Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (Fifth Cir., 1981) (shown when a case may be based on disputed or undisputed facts in a jurisdictional attack)
Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (Fifth Cir., 1981) (facial vs. factual attacks in jurisdictional challenges)
Sosa v. Coleman, 646 F.2d 991 (Fifth Cir., 1981) (exhaustion-related limitations in Title VII context)
Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772 (Fifth Cir., 1999) (pleadings may include attached documents and public records in Rule 12(b)(6) analysis)
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (Fifth Cir., 2000) (pleadings and attachments considered part of the pleadings)
Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429 (Seventh Cir., 1993) (allowing judicial notice of public records in 12(b)(6) motions)
Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454 (Fifth Cir., 2007) (public record evidence admissible on Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (Fifth Cir., 1994) (judicial notice and public records in dismissal under 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)