Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. General Motors, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

November 28, 2017

LETOSHA ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN, MCBRYDE, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion to dismiss filed in the above-captioned action by defendant, General Motors, LLC, to which plaintiff, Letosha Anderson, responded. Having considered the motion, the response, the reply, plaintiff's complaint, and the applicable legal authorities, the court finds that the motion should be granted.

         I. Plaintiff's Alleged Causes of Action

         The following is an abbreviated statement of the allegations by plaintiff as the basis for her eight alleged causes of action:

         Plaintiff is a forty-one-year-old, African American, woman currently employed by defendant. In March 2015, she began working in the defendant's electrical apprenticeship program. She claimed that during the time she held this position, she never received the necessary training, classes, or tools to perform the job, but that "other employees who were over forty (40) years old, who were not African American, who were not female who were all given the proper training, classes, and tools to perform the job." Doc.[1] 1 at 7, ¶ 31 (errors in original).

         On January 4, 2016, plaintiff was transferred to work in the defendant's body shop. Since then, her male coworkers have, "together and individually, hazed, bulled [sic], harassed, insulted, ridiculed, humiliated and disrespected Plaintiff for being a female, African American over forty-one (41) years old."[2]Id. 1 at 8, ¶ 35. Additionally, defendant circulated cards, flyers, and emails within the workplace that all "are offensive with regard to age, race and sex, " id. at 9, ¶¶ 41-43, and defendant retaliated against her for complaining of the offensive materials, id.

         Plaintiff asserted the following (using plaintiff's descriptive headings) as causes of action against defendant based on those alleged facts:

(1) Count One - Age Discrimination, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), in the Workplace at General Motors LLC, Doc. 1 at 11;
(2) Count Two - Race Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1} & 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, id. at 15;
(3) Count Three - Sex-Gender Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) & 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, id. at 16;
(4) Count Four - Disparate Treatment Employment Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, Id. at 17;
(5) Count Five - Disparate Impact Employment Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, id. at 18;
(6) Count Six - Hostile Work Environment, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e & 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, id. at 19;
(7) Count Seven - Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) & 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, id. at 23; and
(8) Count Eight - Defamation, in the Workplace at General Motors, LLC, id. at 26.

         Plaintiff alleged in the first paragraph under each of the headings for Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven that the conduct complained of under the heading also violated Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code "and other similar state statutes." IcL. at 11, ¶ 58; 15, ¶ 86; 16, ¶ 97; 17, ¶ 115; 18, ¶ 125; 19, ¶ 136; & 23, ¶ 158.

         Plaintiff requested injunctive relief, recovery of actual and punitive damages, and for attorneys, expert witness, and court reporter fees. Id. at 30-33.

         II. Grounds of the Motion

         Defendant moved to dismiss each of the claims and causes of action against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing her ADEA claim, that her race-related claims should be dismissed as time-barred, and that all of plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal because she has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support them.

         Defendant filed with its motion as exhibits 1 through 9 specimens of pleadings counsel for plaintiff previously had filed in this court or other federal courts. The exhibits seem to demonstrate that the allegations made by plaintiff in support of each count in the instant action are mere boilerplate the plaintiff's attorney repeatedly has used without regard to the true facts of the instant action and, perhaps, of the other actions filed by plaintiff's counsel from which the exhibits were taken. Docs. 13-21.

         III. Applicable Pleading Standard

         Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in a general way, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.