Olivarez v. T-Mobile USA
997 F.3d 595
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- Elijah Olivarez worked as a T‑Mobile retail associate (Dec 2015–Apr 2018); alleges supervisor made demeaning comments about his transgender status in 2016 and he complained to HR.
- Olivarez took medical leave (egg preservation and hysterectomy) from Sept 2017; Broadspire/T‑Mobile approved leave through Feb 18, 2018 but later denied further extension.
- T‑Mobile terminated Olivarez on April 27, 2018. Olivarez filed an EEOC charge and sued in Nov 2019 asserting Title VII (gender identity), FMLA, ADA, and retaliation claims.
- After two amended complaints, the district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint: Title VII claim for failure to allege a more‑favorably treated comparator; ADA claim for failure to plead disability causation; Title VII retaliation claim was time‑barred.
- The district court denied a Rule 59(e) motion (arguing Bostock changed the law) and denied further leave to amend under Rule 16(b) for lack of good cause. Olivarez appealed as to Title VII and ADA; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleges Title VII discrimination (transgender) | Olivarez argued Bostock means transgender plaintiffs need not plead comparators; discrimination exists as defined by Bostock | T‑Mobile/Broadspire: complaint lacks allegations that similarly situated non‑transgender employees received better treatment; no factual basis for inference of discriminatory motive | Dismissal affirmed: plaintiff failed to plead a more‑favorably treated comparator or facts permitting an inference of gender‑identity discrimination |
| Whether the ADA discrimination claim was sufficiently pleaded | Olivarez asserted discrimination based on a disability related to his medical procedures | Defendants: allegation was conclusory and did not tie termination to a disability; Rule 8 requires factual content | Dismissal affirmed: complaint lacked factual allegations showing disability caused the adverse action |
| Whether Bostock created an intervening change of controlling law justifying Rule 59(e) reconsideration | Olivarez: Bostock eliminated the need for comparator allegations in Title VII cases | Defendants: Bostock extended Title VII coverage but did not remove pleading requirements or the comparator concept | Denial of reconsideration affirmed: Bostock did not eliminate comparator requirement or alter discrimination prima facie requirements |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend under Rule 16(b) | Olivarez: district court improperly applied good‑cause standard; further amendment should be allowed | Defendants: amendment was untimely (after scheduling deadline) and plaintiff offered no good‑cause explanation for five‑month delay | No abuse of discretion: Rule 16(b) applies, plaintiff failed to show good cause; denial also proper under Rule 15(a) for undue delay and repeated failures to cure |
Key Cases Cited
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (construed Title VII to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, but did not eliminate comparator analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial employment discrimination)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual content permitting a reasonable inference of liability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must do more than state labels and conclusions)
- Meador v. Apple, Inc., 911 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Alkhawaldeh v. Dow Chem. Co., 851 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2017) (discussing comparator requirement in discrimination claims)
- S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16(b) good‑cause standard for post‑scheduling‑order amendments)
- Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) may permit amendment when there is an intervening change in controlling law)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (reconsideration after judgment is extraordinary and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Neely v. PSEG Tex., Ltd. P’ship, 735 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements of a prima facie ADA discrimination claim)
- Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Co., 915 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2019) (noting Title VII protects against sexual‑orientation and transgender discrimination under sex discrimination theory)