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.

Styles v. Walmart Sam's Club

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

July 30, 2019

TEEL S. STYLES, Plaintiff,
v.
WALMART SAM'S CLUB, Defendant.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before 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.

         Background

         Plaintiff 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.

         Walmart 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).

         Styles 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 3.

         After 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 September 2017.

         Styles 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 Walmat Part[.]

Id. at 4. It is here the factual allegations in Styles's Amended Complaint abruptly end.

         Walmart 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.

         Legal Standards and Analysis

         When 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).

         Iqbal 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 ...


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.