Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 06-02-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 1:21-cv-00622
Judge: Robert Pittman
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Travis County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Isabelle Maria Antongiorgi
Description: Austin, Texas civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a job sex discrimination theory.
Yvette Melendez, proceeding pro se, is suing Mason Arnold in a dispute that arose out Melendez's employment with the Veggie Noodle Co., LLC, doing business as CeCe's Veggie Co. (“CeCe's”). Arnold owns a 23-percent subordinated interest in CeCe's. Dkt. #1-4 at 1. Melendez asserts a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt. #1 at 2 (“Complaint”). Melendez alleges sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Dkt. #1-1 at 1; see Dkt. #1 at 4.
Melendez was employed by CeCe's from late 2016 to October 29, 2019. Dkt. #1-1 at 9 (EEOC Complaint). Melendez filed an EEOC Complaint in March or April 2020. See Dkt. 1 at 3 (alleging EEOC Complaint was filed April 29, 2020); see also Dkt. #1-1 at 15 (dated “March 31”).
In her Complaint in the instant action and in her EEOC Complaint, Melendez alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which included superiors swearing at her in front of others and undermining her management style, and that her attempts to remedy the situation with the assistance of various superiors were unsuccessful. See, e.g., Dkt. #1-1 at 1. She alleges that her attempts to achieve a “respectful workplace” were effectively ignored by management. Id.
The EEOC provided a right-to-sue letter to Melendez on April 15, 2021, noting that it would not proceed further with its investigation. Dkt. #1-1 at 5. Melendez timely filed this action. Dkt. #1 at 1.
Arnold now moves to dismiss this action under, inter alia, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and (5) as well as Rule 12(b)(6), arguing deficient service of process and that Title VII claims may not be asserted against an individual. Dkt. #12 at 3. Arnold also urges the court to grants his Motion as unopposed because Melendez filed her Response late in violation of Local Rule CV-7(d)(2) without explanation. Dkt. #14 at 2. The undersigned benefitted from Melendez's Response. Accordingly, the undersigned declines to recommend that this Motion be treated as unopposed. At the same time, the undersigned admonishes Melendez that pro se parties are expected to comply with the rules of procedure and Local Rules of the Western District of Texas. See Houston v. Queen, 606 Fed.Appx. 725, 730 (5th Cir. 2015).
Outcome: 06/02/2023 21 ORDER ADOPTING 16 Report and Recommendation and GRANTING 12 Defendant Mason Arnold's Motion to Dismiss. 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed with Civil Case is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 06/02/2023)
06/02/2023 22 FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 06/02/2023)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: