United States District Court, S.D. Texas
OPINION ON DISMISSAL
N. Hughes United States District Judge
Rothman taught English for Cypress-Fairbanks Independent
School District starting in 2010. She worked at a campus for
children with disciplinary problems. In 2018, Rothman
resigned her position. She claims that the school district
discriminated against her age, disability, ethnicity, and
gender; violated her rights to substantive and procedural due
process, equal protection, and free speech; violated her
rights under the FMLA; and retaliated against her to create a
hostile work environment.
discrimination claims under the ADEA, ADA, and Title VII are
time-barred because she did not file this suit within ninety
days of receiving her right-to-sue letter. While
Rothman's complaint criticizes the way the District ran
the school, she does not supply facts that support a
violation of her rights that could predicate legal
ADEA, ADA, and Title VU Claims.
EEOC issued Rothman a right-to-sue letter on December 21,
2018. Rothman was required to sue the District within ninety
days of receiving her letter. Rothman sued the District on
March 19, 2019; she voluntarily dismissed that suit and filed
this suit onjune 14, 2019. Rothman argues that filing the
first suit tolled the time she had to bring this suit. It did
dismissing a lawsuit does not toll the running of the
limitations period. When she dismissed the first suit,
Rothman was put in the position as if it had never been
filed. She filed this suit 175 days after receiving her
right-to-sue letter, well past the 90-days she had. Her
claims under the ADA, ADEA, and Title VII will be dismissed
because they are time-barred.
claims the District violated her due process, equal
protection, and free speech rights under the United States
and Texas Constitutions and under Section 1983 of the United
States Code. The facts Rothman pleaded do not support these
fifty-page complaint against the District, Rothman lists a
plethora of complaints about how the school is run. None
evinces a violation of her rights. As support for
her first amendment claim, Rothman complains that the
principal referred to some other staff members as "you
people" and told them to look for a job elsewhere if
they were disgruntled with the administration. These
statements are not violations of Rothman's right to free
speech. Likewise, her claims that the administration stalked
her, accused her of bad performance, or threatened to
terminate her do not violate her rights to due process or
equal protection. Rothman pleaded no fact that shows a
violation of her Constitutional rights as a result of the
District's decisions or comments.
disagreed with the actions of the administration and disliked
her working there; those are not violations of her rights.
Rothman's claims under the Texas and United States
Constitutions will be dismissed.
FMLA and §504 Claims.
says the District interfered with her rights under the FMIA
and discriminated against her because of her disability. To
recover for this claim, (a) she must show she has a statutory
disability, (b) she was qualified for her job, and (c) either
that the District interfered with her rights under the FMIA
or acted in a materially adverse manner to her because of her
claims that the District delayed the approval of her FMLA -
she supplies no evidence of a delay. She complains that it
told the other staff that she would be out on leave
indefinitely - ...