United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
JACQUELINE C. DU BOIS, Plaintiff,
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., FAMILY CLINIC d.b.a. FOREMOST FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Martin Luther King, Jr., Family Clinic
d.b.a. Foremost Family Health Centers's Motion to Dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the
“Motion”). Def.'s Mot. (ECF No. 29). For the
reasons stated, the District Court should GRANT the Motion
and dismiss Plaintiff Jacqueline C. Du Bois's Amended
Complaint with prejudice.
lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions arising
out of the employment and subsequent termination of pro
se Plaintiff Jacqueline C. Du Bois, a pediatrician who
worked as Chief Medical Officer for Defendant Martin Luther
King, Jr., Family Clinic d.b.a. Foremost Family Health
Centers (Foremost) from August 2013 to August 2015. Am.
Compl. at 2 (ECF No. 28). Foremost and Du Bois entered into
an Employment Agreement on August 8, 2013, setting forth
terms and conditions of employment. Id.; see
also Def.'s App. at 293-307 (ECF No. 31). But
Foremost and Du Bois's working relationship deteriorated.
Am. Compl. at 2. Du Bois purportedly faced several challenges
and experienced mistreatment during her time at Foremost.
Specifically, Du Bois alleges that she experienced race,
color, gender, and age discrimination during her employment.
Id. She also avers because “her work
environment became severely hostile, ” she was prepared
to resign. Id. Instead, Du Bois alleges she was
“abruptly terminated.” Id. For its part,
Foremost maintains that it terminated Du Bois in August 2015
when it learned she failed to renew her certification to
prescribe controlled substances and had prescribed controlled
substances to at least four patients while her certification
was expired. Def.'s App. at 106-07, 308-16, 324-29. Also,
after Foremost terminated Du Bois, it learned she failed to
complete at least 249 patient records. Id. at
317-21. Because Du Bois failed to timely complete medical
records and prescribed controlled substances with an expired
certification, Foremost was required to file a report with
the Texas Medical Board, which agreed Du Bois failed to
maintain proper medical records and prescribed controlled
substances with an expired certificate. Id. at
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) on October
24, 2015. Id. at 10-14. Du Bois's EEOC Charge
indicates Foremost discriminated against her based on color,
sex, and age and retaliated against her. Id. Before
receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Du Bois filed
suit against Foremost on November 18, 2015, in the 68th
Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, with Cause No.
DC-15-14073 (the “State Court Lawsuit”).
Id. at 107. On August 3, 2016, Foremost filed a
Motion to Abate in the State Court Lawsuit. Id. at
3-26. In her response to Foremost's Motion to Abate, Du
Bois admitted she reported Foremost to the EEOC for: (1)
“discrimination based on color, sex and age”; (2)
“violation of the Equal Pay Act”; and (3)
“retaliation for reporting same[.]” Id.
sought to obtain a favorable judgment in advance of trial by
filing successive summary judgment motions. On August 31,
2016, Foremost filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(“First Motion for Summary Judgment”) seeking
summary judgment on traditional and no-evidence grounds on Du
Bois's claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2)
intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) breach of
contract, money had and received and unjust enrichment based
on bonuses, and (4) breach of contract, money had and
received and unjust enrichment based on the electronic health
record incentives. Id. at 107. Du Bois then filed a
Third Amended Petition and a response the morning of the
summary judgment hearing on October 10, 2016. Id. at
33-45. The trial court granted in part Foremost's First
Motion for Summary Judgment. The court dismissed Du
Bois's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, money
had and received and unjust enrichment. Id. at
November 11, 2016, Foremost filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Second Motion for Summary Judgment”)
on both traditional and no-evidence grounds seeking judgment
on all causes of action. Id. at 255-412. On December
5, 2016, one week before trial, the trial court granted
Foremost's Second Motion for Summary Judgment and ruled
on Foremost's objections to Du Bois's summary
judgment evidence. Id. at 104-11. Du Bois appealed,
and the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of her
claims on summary judgment. Id.
subsequently filed this lawsuit on September 29, 2017. Compl.
(ECF No. 3). Foremost filed an answer on June 12, 2018.
Answer (ECF No. 16). On November 27, 2018, Du Bois filed a
third lawsuit against Foremost. See DuBois v. Martin
Luther King, Jr. Family Clinic, Cause No. 3:18-CV-3118-L
(N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2018). On December 7, 2018, the Court
consolidated Du Bois's third lawsuit into this case and
ordered her to file an amended complaint. See Order
(ECF No. 27).
filed her Amended Consolidated Complaint on December 27,
2018, in which she pleads the following claims: (1) violation
of the Equal Pay Act; (2) violations of “Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act;” (3) violations of the Age
Discrimination “in the Employment Act;” and (4)
retaliation. Am. Compl. 3-5. Foremost filed the Motion on
January 10, 2019, arguing that Du Bois's Amended
Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on several grounds. See generally
Mot. at 1-2. Du Bois failed to respond to the Motion, so the
Court considers the Motion without the benefit of a response.
survive Foremost's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Du
Bois's complaint “must contain 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)). Du
Bois's factual allegations must “raise her right to
relief above the speculative level, ” but they do not
need to be detailed. Lee v. Verizon Commc'ns,
Inc., 837 F.3d 523, 533 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing
Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Hous., 607 F.3d
413, 417 (5th Cir. 2010)). Du Bois's claims have facial
plausibility if she “pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Court must “accept all well-pleaded facts as true and
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to [Du
Bois].” In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Doe
v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008)).
However, the Court does not accept as true “conclusory
allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal
conclusions.” Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484
F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP
Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)).
a court ruling on a motion to dismiss may rely on only the
complaint and its proper attachments. A court is permitted,
however, to rely on documents incorporated into the complaint
by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
notice.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc.,540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). “A written document that is
attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered part of
the complaint and may be considered in a 12(b)(6) dismissal
proceeding.” Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d
776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007). Additionally, a “court may
consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss that
‘are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and