Zinnah v. Lubbock State ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10242 Document: 00516957677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 6, 2023
No. 23-10242
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Thelma Zinnah,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Lubbock State Supported Living Center, operated by
Texas Health and Human Services,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:22-CV-35
______________________________
Before Wiener, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Thelma Zinnah was fired from her position as “assistant home team
leader” at the Lubbock State Supported Living Center because she allegedly
sprayed water on a resident. Zinnah, in turn, sued the Center under Title VII,
arguing that she was fired because she was black. In her complaint, Zinnah
makes various vague and conclusory allegations, all tied thematically to the
Center’s purported discriminatory treatment of its black employees:
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10242 Document: 00516957677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 23-10242
 “Plaintiff would show the Court that Defendant has a long
history of engaging in a pattern and practice whereby black
employees are treated differently by Defendant than non-
black employees, particular [sic], regarding the manner in
which the discipline and termination of employees is
handled.”
 “Plaintiff believes the evidence in this case will show that
during the course of Plaintiff’s employment, black
employees have been fired at a significantly higher
percentage than non-black employees and that black
employees were routinely disciplined in a harsher manner
than non-black employees for the same or similar types of
incidents.”
 “Plaintiff further believes the evidence will show numerous
situations where black employees were involved in a
specific incident that also involved non-black employees. In
those incidents, black employees receive harsher discipline
than the non-black employees.”
 “Plaintiff believes the evidence will show that such
disparate treatment happened with sufficient regularity so
as to create a culture wherein it was normalized to treat
black employees differently than non-black employees.”
 “Plaintiff claims that as a result of the systemic racism
continuing at Defendant’s living center, her race was a
motivating factor in the decision to fire her.”
 “That Plaintiff’s race was a factor in the decision to fire her
is seen by both the pattern and practice of Defendant
treating black employees differently than non-black
employees in regard to disciplinary matters.”
2
Case: 23-10242 Document: 00516957677 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 23-10242
 “Plaintiff intends to show the Court that non-black
employees are not disciplined or terminated for conduct
that is substantially similar to conduct alleged against black
employees.”
 “Plaintiff will show that non-black employees who have
been confirmed for abuse in cases that do not involve an
actual injury or physical harm to a resident, have not been
fired with the regularity of black employees such as
Plaintiff.”
 “The Defendant has violated the [Civil Rights Act] by
discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her race and
for the disparate treatment by Defendant of Plaintiff and
other black employees which has been ongoing for years.”
 “By firing Plaintiff, Defendant treated Plaintiff differently
than non-black employees under substantially similar
circumstances (ie.confirmation [sic] of alleged abuse that
did not involve injury to a resident).”
 “Moreover, Defendant has violated the [Civil Rights Act]
by engaging in the disparate treatment of black employees
as compared to non-black employees in matters involving
discipline.”
 “In particular, the facially neutral basis for termination
used against Plaintiff, that is, that she was confirmed for
abuse, is not applied equally to black employees like
Plaintiff when compared to non-black employees.”
 “The unlawful conduct of Defendant, as described above,
has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff harm.”
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, acting on behalf
of the Center, moved to dismiss Zinnah’s complaint, arguing that all of her
3
Case: 23-10242 Document: 00516957677 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 23-10242
allegations are conclusory. The district court agreed, granted the motion,
dismissed Zinnah’s complaint without prejudice, and sua sponte granted her
leave to amend.
Rather than take the opportunity to amend her complaint, Zinnah
appealed, contending that her complaint contained enough specificity to
survive a motion to dismiss. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In addition to simply
block-quoting the district court’s order and the allegations in her complaint
(twice), Zinnah now argues on appeal that she need not provide “specific
names of similarly situated non-black employees” because “the motion to
dismiss was filed prior to any discovery taking place.”
We agree with the district court that all the allegations in Zinnah’s
complaint, recited at length above, are nothing but bare legal conclusions that
are insufficient to state a claim of employment discrimination. See, e.g.,
Olivarez v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 997 F.3d 595, 599–600 (5th Cir. 2021).
Zinnah need not necessarily provide names of other similarly situated non-
black employees who received less harsh treatment for incidents like
“spraying water on residents,” but federal pleading rules require something
more than the-defendant-harmed-me allegations. They require, in short,
“factual content,” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678, and Zinnah cannot simply rely
on vague assertions with the unsubstantiated hope that discovery will later
vindicate them, cf. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Spence & Green Chem. Co., 612
F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir. 1980).
AFFIRMED.
4