United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
TEEL S. STYLES, Plaintiff,
WALMART SAM'S CLUB, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Walmart Sam's Club's Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) (ECF
No. 23). For the reasons stated, the District Court should
GRANT the Motion.
Teel S. Styles alleges that she was harassed while working at
one of Defendant Walmart Sam's Club's (Walmart)
stores in 2016. Am. Compl. at 2-4 (ECF No. 22). She allegedly
filed a formal complaint with the United States Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission (the “EEOC”)
and later sued Walmart in federal district court in 2017.
See Compl. 2, 4 (ECF No. 3); see also Styles v.
Walmart Sam's Club, 3:17-cv-02202-M-BT. Because
Styles had not yet obtained a statutory notice of the right
to sue from the EEOC, the district court dismissed her
lawsuit. See J. (ECF No. 9), in Styles v.
Walmart Sam's Club, 3:17-CV-02202-M-BT. After later
acquiring notice of her right to sue, Styles filed this
lawsuit asserting her “right to to [sic] pursue the
Charge of what I claim as Commercial Broadcasting, Sexual
Assault, workplace Violence, Discrimination, on behalf of the
employer.” Compl. at 1.
moved the Court to dismiss Styles's complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot. (ECF No. 11).
After considering the motion, the United States Magistrate
Judge filed Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR)
that the District Court grant Walmart's motion, dismiss
Styles's complaint without prejudice, and allow Styles to
amend her complaint and plead facts sufficient to state a
claim for relief. FCR at 5-6 (ECF No. 19). Over Styles's
written Objection (ECF No. 20), the District Court entered an
Order Accepting the FCR and granted Styles 30 days to amend
her complaint. Order at 1 (ECF No. 21).
filed her Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. Am. Compl.
(ECF No. 22). In it, she attempted to provide additional
details surrounding Walmart's conduct giving rise to her
claims. Also, she requests relief “on The Grounds That
Walmart Sam”s is Guilty of Intentional Commercial
Broadcasting, Wrongful Termination, Workplace harassment and
Discrimination. That Cause Loss wages and Medical
Benefit.” Id. at 1 (no alterations from
original). She also writes that the “court shall grant
the Employer of Walmart Sam”s club to pay Monetary,
Punitive and Collateral damages in the sum of 2.5 billion
Dollars[.]” Styles then alleges that on her orientation
day, another newly hired individual who Styles identifies
only as “Mitchelle, ” asked a human resources
manager, Norma Labrada, about Walmart's procedure for
reporting fellow employees with offensive body odors.
Id. at 2. According to Styles, Labrada informed
Mitchelle that the Walmart location in question does not have
“that problem” but that an employee once had to
be told to maintain proper, personal hygiene habits in order
to promote a clean and safe work environment. Id. at
her orientation day, Styles worked as a door greeter.
Id. Within two months of her start date, Styles
contends she “was A victim of Consistant Insult Slander
By DeFamation through Commercial Broadcasting With Sexual
Content .Slandering My Name With Unclean Business Over the
Club(Store)Intercom for Everybody with an Listening Ear to
Hear.” Id. She avers she filed a police report
and an internal complaint with Walmart. Id. After
that, she filed a charge with the EEOC and then filed the
complaint in Styles v. Walmart Sam's Club,
3:17-CV-02202-M-BT. Walmart terminated her employment in
also pleads the following facts:
I Was Suppose To have Been Under A Cleaniness Investigation
Whereby Oral Rape For My Breath through Human Traficketing
Members Into the Club In Association To Ed Young fellowship
Church. To The Best Of My Recollection and Knowledge.
Apparently, from what We Know is That. Edwin Young Of
Fellowship Church Had State History Abetted A New Member of
My Family Across state Line Of North Carolina Behind A
Complaint that I had Filed against His Church Years Ago and
Had This Person Of Interest to Fabricate some Insult
Allegation against My Name and The Plan was to Use this
Club(Store) as the grounds To Plott “Stinky Unclean
Breath and Menistral Cycle To Save Edwin Young Through His
Abbetts. Then we Learned that, Edwin Abetted A Second Person
In The State Of Texas A Aquaintence family Member and The
Both But, Not Limited to Domestic Violence the Club whereby
Id. at 4. It is here the factual allegations in
Styles's Amended Complaint abruptly end.
filed its renewed Motion to dismiss on January 31, 2019. Mot.
(ECF No. 23). Styles failed to file a response, so the Court
considers the Motion without the benefit of a response.
Standards and Analysis
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the district court
must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Baker
v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing
McCartney v. First City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th
Cir. 1992)). The well-pleaded facts must permit the court to
infer more than just the mere possibility of misconduct.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
sets out a two-part test: first, the Court must identify
which allegations in the complaint are legal conclusions
because the Court need not assume those conclusions are true;
second, the Court must “consider the factual
allegations in the complaint to determine if they plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 680-81. Under the first part of the test, a plaintiff
must state “more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The second prong of the test under
Iqbal is a “context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679 (citation omitted). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Where a complaint “lack[s] even a ...