Walker v. Concordia Capital
1:18-cv-00703
W.D. La.Feb 27, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jacinta R. Walker, an African American bank teller employed by Concordia Capital since 2013, sued under Title VII alleging race and national-origin discrimination, pay disparity, failure to promote, denial of leave/benefits, and retaliation.
- Walker filed an EEOC charge (No. 461-2017-00369) alleging a discrete adverse act on October 28, 2016; the EEOC charge was filed February 25, 2017 (300-day lookback begins May 1, 2016).
- Walker amended her complaint after leave was granted; Concordia moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on timeliness, administrative-exhaustion, and pleading-deficiency grounds.
- The magistrate judge considered Walker's EEOC charge and intake questionnaire referenced in the complaint and concluded: acts before May 1, 2016 are time-barred, claims not in the EEOC charge were unexhausted (including retaliation and denial/cancellation of benefits), and remaining allegations lacked factual specificity to state plausible Title VII claims.
- The recommendation: grant Concordia’s motions and dismiss Walker’s Title VII claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Concordia's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of pre-May 1, 2016 claims | Claims arise from continuing unlawful practices dating back to 2014; equitable tolling/continuing-violation applies | EEOC charge filed 2/25/2017; 300-day cutoff is 5/1/2016; discrete acts before that date are time-barred and Walker failed to plead an organized scheme | Claims before 5/1/2016 are time-barred; continuing-violation/equitable tolling not shown |
| Administrative exhaustion (claims outside EEOC charge) | Complaint broadly alleges discrimination and related harms over tenure; should be allowed to proceed | EEOC charge only alleges 10/28/2016 pay/promotion incident; denial of leave, cancellation of insurance, and retaliation not in charge and would not reasonably grow from it | Claims of discrimination/harassment before 10/28/2016, denial of benefits/leave, and retaliation are unexhausted and dismissed |
| Pleading sufficiency for discrimination (failure to promote, pay disparity) | Alleged unequal pay and failure to be promoted compared to less-qualified white employees; alleges adverse actions and protected status | Allegations are conclusory and lack dates, names, pay figures, duties, or specific facts to show ‘‘nearly identical’’ comparators or particular promotion details | Complaints are facially deficient; failure-to-promote and pay-discrimination claims not plausibly pleaded |
| Hostile work environment / harassment | Alleges work environment was intimidating, hostile, and offensive over tenure | Allegations are conclusory; no specific repeated, severe, or pervasive incidents tied to race/national origin | Hostile-work-environment claim not plausibly alleged and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim beyond mere possibility)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (Title VII plaintiffs need not plead a prima facie McDonnell Douglas case to survive a motion to dismiss)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts vs. continuing violations; timeliness rule)
- Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2003) (limitations defense may be resolved on Rule 12(b)(6) when pleadings show claims are time-barred)
- Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) (EEOC charge prerequisite to Title VII suit)
- Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, 96 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 1996) (filing an EEOC charge is prerequisite to Title VII action)