Woldetadik v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
881 F. Supp. 2d 738
N.D. Tex.2012Background
- Plaintiff Mesfin Woldetadik, 47, Ethiopian and Black, employed by 7-Eleven since 1995 as a store clerk (store #18717, Dallas)
- May 19, 2011 termination following a customer incident involving unpaid beer and gasoline; supervisor directed him to go home and said he was being replaced for misconduct
- Plaintiff alleges age and national origin discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, §1981, and TCHRA, plus retaliation for opposing unlawful practices
- Plaintiff asserts state-law negligence and negligence per se claims tied to employer’s lack of diversity training and supervision
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on July 29, 2011 alleging lack of diversity training and discrimination; defendant moved to dismiss counts and strike portions of the complaint
- Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion; negligence claims dismissed with prejudice; age discrimination claim survives (but-for standard) and retaliation/national origin claims remain
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether age discrimination claim survives under ADEA despite other motives | Woldetadik asserts age was the but-for cause of termination | 7-Eleven argues age was not the but-for cause; at most a motive among others | Age discrimination claim survives Rule 12(b)(6) analysis; but-for standard applied at pleading stage; inconsistent theories allowed at pleading stage |
| Whether plaintiff may plead inconsistent theories (age and national origin) at the pleading stage | Plaintiff may plead alternative theories under Rule 8(d)(3) | Defendant contends inconsistent theories should preclude age claim | Permitted to plead inconsistent theories; but-for standard still governs the age claim later |
| Whether common-law negligence claims are preempted by TCHRA | Claims arise from conduct supporting discrimination/retaliation | TCHRA preempts common-law torts for harassment/retaliation | Negligence and negligence per se claims preempted and dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Rule 12(f) strike of certain paragraphs is appropriate at this early stage | Striking unnecessary; discovery will clarify scope | Motion to strike should succeed to avoid irrelevant material | Rule 12(f) motion denied as premature; better to move under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(e) if needed |
| Whether amendment should be allowed for dismissed claims | Amendment should be allowed if feasible | Amendment futile for dismissed claims | Amendment not permitted for claims legally dismissed; remaining claims: age discrimination, national origin discrimination, retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible claims, not mere conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleadings must contain enough facts to state a plausible claim)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (no prima facie pleading requirement for some employment claims; general pleading standard)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires but-for cause for discrimination; no mixed-motives jury instruction in ADEA)
- Houchen v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc., No. 3:08-CV1251-L, 2010 WL 1267221 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (pleading inconsistent theories allowed; but-for standard applies to ADEA at trial)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (TCHRA preempts some common-law torts arising from the same conduct; exhaustion/damages limits apply)
- City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. 2008) (TCHRA provides exclusive remedy for retaliation claims by public employees)
- Culver v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (N.D. Ala. 2009) (district ruling treating Gross distinctions on pleading; not binding here)
- Jones v. Halliburton Co., 791 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (court recognizes TCHRA preemption effects on related claims)
- Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2002) (pleading standards; factual allegations must raise reasonable inference of liability)
- Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2004) (pleadings sufficiency under 12(b)(6) clarified)
- Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) (pleadings include attached documents referred to in complaint)