Nunez-Renck v. International Business Machines Corporation
3:23-cv-01308
N.D. Tex.Sep 14, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Rosalva Nuñez-Renck, a 43-year-old Hispanic vice president at IBM, disclosed a pregnancy in April 2021 and testified as a witness in Kingston v. IBM on April 13, 2021, alleging she was aggressively examined.
- After notifying her manager David La Rose of her pregnancy, Nuñez alleges he began yelling and bullying her on multiple calls; she sought medical care for pre-term labor and began maternity leave July 16, 2021, returning September 27, 2021.
- While on and after leave, Nuñez alleges continued hostile treatment and adverse actions (e.g., alleged denial of advancement, reassignment of duties, discipline) and that she pursued internal HR contact and legal representation.
- Nuñez filed an EEOC Charge on May 11, 2022 (later amended to add some claims) but did not check the "National Origin" box or allege national-origin facts beyond noting U.S. naturalization.
- She sued IBM in state court (April 28, 2023) asserting claims under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, the FMLA, and the Texas Labor Code; IBM removed and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court granted IBM’s motion to dismiss for failure to state plausible claims but granted leave to replead most claims; it dismissed without leave the Title VII national-origin claim, Title VII age claim, and the Texas Labor Code claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or because the claim is unavailable under Title VII.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nuñez exhausted EEOC administrative remedies for a national-origin claim | Nuñez alleges her EEOC Charge included national-origin discrimination | IBM notes the Charge never checked "National Origin" box or pleaded national-origin facts | Court: national-origin claim not exhausted; dismissed without leave to replead |
| Timeliness of discrimination claims (180-day rule for Title VII/ADEA/ADA) | Nuñez alleges discrimination from April 2021 to present | IBM argues events before Nov 12, 2021 are time-barred and cannot form discrete claims | Court: only discrete acts on/after Nov 12, 2021 are actionable; earlier acts admissible as background |
| Sufficiency of pleaded claims (race/color/sex/age/hostile work environment/retaliation/ADA/ADEA) | Nuñez alleges adverse treatment, pay disparity, bullying, FMLA use, and general discriminatory conduct | IBM contends allegations are conclusory, inconsistent with pleaded facts, and fail to allege adverse actions or comparators | Court: dismissed most discrimination and hostile-environment and retaliation claims for failure to plead plausible facts; age claim dismissed (Title VII doesn't cover age); granted leave to replead most claims |
| FMLA and Texas Labor Code (limitations/exhaustion) | Nuñez alleges FMLA interference and retaliation and asserts TLC claims | IBM argues FMLA/TLC claims are time-barred or unexhausted with Texas Workforce Commission | Court: FMLA claims dismissed for failure to plead facts (not dismissed on statute of limitations because willful-violation tolling possible); TLC claims dismissed for failure to file with TWC (no leave to replead) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaints must plead factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (prima facie framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts vs. hostile-environment and 180-day rule)
- EEOC v. WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d 393 (elements of hostile-work-environment claim)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires age to be the but-for cause)
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30 (FMLA entitlement and restoration rights)