Weeks v. Bottling Group LLC, 4:21-cv-00066

Weeks filed suit after her December 2019–February 2020 employment with New Bern Transport Corporation/PBC as the only female sales representative, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code.
She alleges supervisor Pascal "PK" Reyes and coworkers denied training, made sexist remarks, and that after complaining to HR and regional management she was suspended (Feb. 11) and terminated (Feb. 18).
The state-court petition was removed to federal court; Weeks amended to add PepsiCo, Inc. as a defendant.
PepsiCo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Weeks failed to allege PepsiCo was her employer (directly, as a single/integrated employer with its subsidiary, or as a joint employer).
Weeks untimely filed a combined response and motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; the magistrate considered the First Amended Complaint and the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
Magistrate Judge Fannin recommends granting PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss (dismissing PepsiCo) and denying Weeks leave to amend as both procedurally improper and futile on the pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PepsiCo is Weeks’s employer under the single‑employer / integrated‑enterprise doctrine	Weeks alleges New Bern is a PepsiCo subsidiary and pleads facts (handbook, shared HR, personnel IDs, PepsiCo policies) showing integration	PepsiCo argues Weeks pleads no facts showing PepsiCo exercised centralized control over employment decisions or otherwise acted as her employer	Court: Dismiss — allegations insufficient to show interrelation, centralized control, common management, or financial control required to treat PepsiCo and New Bern as a single employer
Whether PepsiCo is a joint employer of Weeks	Weeks contends shared policies, HR functions, personnel records and an HR manager who allegedly affirmed termination show joint control	PepsiCo says Weeks alleges only ordinary parent‑subsidiary policy overlap and no right to control day‑to‑day employment or termination decisions	Court: Dismiss — pleadings do not plausibly show PepsiCo controlled or directed Weeks’ employment or had right to do so
Whether Weeks should be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint	Weeks sought leave in her response to address alleged deficiencies and add factual detail	PepsiCo opposes (procedural delay, no new facts sufficient to cure defects)	Court: Deny — motion filed in lieu of a substantive response (improper), and proposed amendment would be futile because new allegations still fail to plead employer status

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must plead factual content permitting plausible inference of liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires more than labels and conclusions)
Deal v. State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex., 5 F.3d 117 (two‑step inquiry for employer status under Title VII)
Schweitzer v. Advanced Telemarketing Corp., 104 F.3d 761 (single/integrated employer factors for parent‑subsidiary liability)
Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773 (parent must exercise atypical control to overcome limited liability presumption)
Perry v. VHS San Antonio, L.L.C., 990 F.3d 918 (emphasizes centrality of which entity made final employment decisions)