Anyanwu v. State of Louisiana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IMMACULATA N. ANYANWU CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO.: 18-00778-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by Defendant.

Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Doc. 18). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is

granted ten days from the date of this order to file a supplemental and amended

complaint with respect to her Title IIT ADA, Title VIT Civil Rights Act, and FMLA

claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that she was hired by Defendant to work as a Registered Nurse

(RN) at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System in February of 2007.! (Doc. 1

at p. 2), At some point in 2012, Plaintiff took medical leave and then returned to work

in November of 2012 with unspecified work restrictions. Plaintiff was thereafter

terminated. Ud.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of Plaintiffs work restrictions and

disability at the time it hired her in 2007. She further alleges that the only reason

' The Kastern Louisiana Mental Health System is an agency of the Louisiana Department of Health.

La. B.S. 36:259.

she was terminated was because of her disability. (Doc. 1 at p. 3). Plaintiff brings

claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. Ud. at p. 1). Defendant seeks the

dismissal of Plaintiffs Title I ADA and Title VII Civil Rights Act claims, asserting

(1) that the Court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Title I

ADA claim because of the Eleventh Amendment, and (2) that Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim for relief under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a claim is “ ‘properly dismissed

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or

constitutional power to adjudicate’ the claim.” In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde

Prods. Liab. Litig., 668 F.8d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Home Builders Ass'n v.

City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998)). In order to “prevent ] a court

without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice,” a court

should consider a Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction before

addressing any motions that concern the merits of a case. Id. at 286-87 (citing

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001)).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is analyzed under the same standard

as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Benton v. United States, 960 F.2d 19, 21

(5th Cir. 1992). That standard seeks to determine whether “a complaint ... contain|[s]

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[Flacial plausibility” exists “when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court. to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” /d. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 556). Hence, the complaint need not set out “detailed factual allegations,” but

something “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action” is required. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Factual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Jd.

Ill. DISCUSSION

A, ADA Claims

1. Title TLADA

Plaintiffs complaint alleges general ADA violations, and Plaintiff specifies in

her opposition that she brings suit under Title I of the ADA. Title I prohibits

employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job

application procedures, hiring, and firing among other aspects of employment.

42 U.S.C. § 12112. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs Title I ADA claim is barred by

the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Eleventh

Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against

one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of

any Foreign State.” The Eleventh Amendment bars private suits in federal court

against states, including suits against state agencies. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332,

339 (1979). Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-100 (1984);

Aguilar v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir.1998). The

Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment

immunity in Title I of the ADA and thus a plaintiff cannot bring a Title I ADA suit

against the state seeking money damages. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama uv.

Garreti, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001).

Here, Plaintiff brings a Title I ADA claim against the State of Louisiana

through the Louisiana Department of Health, Office of Behavioral Health. (Doc. 1 at

p. 2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has already determined

that a predecessor to the Louisiana Department of Health, the Louisiana Department

of Health and Human Resources, is an alter ego of the state and is therefore entitled

to Kleventh Amendment immunity. Darlak v. Bobear, 814 F.2d 1055, 1059 (5th Cir.

1987). Moreover, courts in this circuit have uniformly held that the Louisiana

Department of Health is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity. F.g., Amir El,

2016 WL 7012277 at *2. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Title ADA

claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

2. Title II ADA

Plaintiff also specifies in her opposition that she brings suit under Title II of

the ADA. Title II of the ADA instructs that “no qualified individual shall... . by

reason of a disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of

the services, programs or activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination

2 In Darlak, the Fifth Circuit held that the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources

(DHHR) was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Darlak, 814 F.2d at 1060. The DHHR was

abolished and replaced by the Department of Health and Hospitals. Torres-Jiminez v. Louisiana

State Beard of Medical Examiners, No. Civ. A. 95-0721, 1995 WL 626155, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 28,

1995). In 2016, the Lousiana Department of Health and Hospitals was renamed the Louisiana

Department of the Health. Amir Hl v. Department of Health and Hospitals, State of Lowisiana, No.

16-6545, 2016 WL 7012277, at *n. 1 (H.D, La. Dee. 1, 2016).

by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Fifth Circuit has held that Title IT of the ADA

does not create a cause of action for employment discrimination. Taylor v. City of

Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276, 282 (5th Cir. 2015).

The Court notes that as of now, Plaintiff does not appear to have pleaded any

facts that would support a Title IT violation. Plaintiff only alleges that her RN position

was terminated by a state entity because of her disability, which constitutes

employment discrimination. She does not describe any state services, programs, or

activities that she was denied. Because neither party has briefed this claim, the Court

will afford Plaintiff ten days to file a supplemental and amended complaint with

respect to the Title IT ADA claim.

B. ‘Title VII Civil Rights Act Claim

Defendant also seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's claim under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, asserting that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for

relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Title VII prohibits discrimination by employers “against

any individual. .. because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Although Plaintiff asserts in her complaint that

Defendant retaliated against her “in violation of Title VII,” Plaintiff does not specify

how Defendant did so. She does not claim that Defendant discriminated against her

on the basis of any protected classes specified in Title VIT. In hex opposition, Plaintiff

alleges that she was discriminated against because of her national origin. (Doc. 13 at

p. 4). However, the Court cannot consider new factual allegations raised in Plaintiffs

opposition that were not specified in the complaint. In re Enron Corp. Securities,

Derivative & ERISA Litigation, 761 F. Supp. 2d 504, 566 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (Tt is

axiomatic that a complaint cannot be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to

dismiss.”) (citing In re Baker Hughes Sec. Litig., 136 F.Supp.2d 630, 646 (S.D. Tex.

2001).

Defendant further seeks the dismissal of any claims Plaintiff brings under 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), which prohibits retaliation if an employee opposes any practice

made unlawful by Title VII. To succeed on such a claim, Plaintiff must show that (1)

she participated in an activity protected by Title VII, (2) her employer took an adverse

employment action against her, and (8) a causal connection exists between the

protected activity and the adverse employment action. McCoy City of Shreveport,

492 ¥.3d 551, 556-557 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed

to allege that she participated in protected activity. An employee has engaged in

protected activity if she (1) opposed any practice made an unlawful employment

practice by Title VII or (2) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any

manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. Grimes v. Texas

Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff has made no allegations to suggest that she took either of these actions.

Given that Plaintiff has failed to state facts that would support a plausible

claim for relief under Title VII and requests an opportunity to amend the complaint,

the Court will allow Plaintiff ten days from the date of this order to amend the

complaint with respect to this claim.

C. Family Medical Leave Act Claim

Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant violated the Family Medical Leave Act

(FMLA) in her opposition. However, in the complaint, even though Plaintiff mentions

that she took FMLA leave, she does not claim a cause of action under the FMLA.

Again, given that Plaintiff requests an opportunity to amend the complaint, the Court

will allow Plaintiff ten days from the date of this order to amend the complaint with

respect to this claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Title I ADA claim is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has ten days from the date of this

Order to file a supplemental and amended complaint with respect to her Title II ADA,

Title VII Civil Rights Act, and FMLA claims. Failure to do so may result in dismissal

of such claims.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 23h. of July, 2019.

Sa

feet

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA