Olivarez v. T-Mobile USA

Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 12, 2021
No. 20-20463 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Elijah Anthony Olivarez,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
T-Mobile USA, Incorporated; Broadspire Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:19-CV-4452
Before Smith, Stewart, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from
“discriminat[ing]” against any individual with respect to employment
“because of such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Under
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination under
Title VII. Accordingly, a plaintiff who alleges transgender discrimination is
entitled to the same benefits—but also subject to the same burdens—as any
other plaintiff who claims sex discrimination under Title VII.
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
Elijah Olivarez alleges transgender discrimination under Title VII.
But Olivarez does not allege facts sufficient to support an inference of
transgender discrimination—that is, that T-Mobile would have behaved
differently toward an employee with a different gender identity. So we are
left with this: An employer discharged a sales employee who happens to be
transgender—but who took six months of leave, and then sought further
leave for the indefinite future. That is not discrimination—that is ordinary
business practice. And Olivarez’s remaining issues on appeal are likewise
meritless. We accordingly affirm.
I.
Olivarez was employed as a retail store associate for T-Mobile from
approximately December 21, 2015 to April 27, 2018.
During the first half of 2016, a supervisor allegedly made demeaning
and inappropriate comments about Olivarez’s transgender status. Olivarez
filed a complaint with human resources. In response, T-Mobile allegedly
retaliated by reducing Olivarez’s hours to part-time from September to
November 2016.
In September 2017, Olivarez stopped coming to work in order to
undergo egg preservation and a hysterectomy. The next month, Olivarez
requested leave to be applied retroactively from September to December
2017. Broadspire Services administers T-Mobile’s leave programs. It
granted Olivarez unpaid leave from September 23 to December 17, and paid
medical leave from December 17 to December 31. In addition, the company
granted Olivarez’s request for an extension of leave through February 18,
2018. But it denied a further extension of leave in March 2018.
T-Mobile fired Olivarez on April 27, 2018. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission issued a right-to-sue letter to Olivarez on August
15, 2019.
2
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
On November 12, 2019, Olivarez filed suit against T-Mobile and
Broadspire. The first complaint asserted (1) interference, discrimination,
and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et
seq., (2) discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and (3) discrimination under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
The district court granted Olivarez’s motion to amend the complaint
on November 22, 2019, and Olivarez filed a First Amended Complaint the
same day. The amended complaint asserted the same claims and allegations.
On February 13, 2020, the district court entered a scheduling order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. That order set a deadline of
March 13 to amend pleadings “with leave of court.” Both T-Mobile and
Broadspire moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Olivarez opposed both motions and asserted the
right to further amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a).
On March 27, 2020, the district court denied T-Mobile’s and
Broadspire’s motions without prejudice and allowed Olivarez to further
amend the complaint by April 17. The district court expressly stated that
Olivarez’s pleadings were deficient and granted leave to amend the
complaint “so that it is responsive to the issues raised by the Moving
Defendants’ motions to dismiss.”
Olivarez filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 16, 2020. As
relevant to this appeal, that complaint presented the same facts and claims.
On April 30, T-Mobile and Broadspire moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Olivarez opposed these motions, but did not request leave to further amend
the complaint.
The district court granted both motions to dismiss. The court
dismissed the Title VII discrimination claim on the ground that the Second
3
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
Amended Complaint failed to allege that Olivarez was treated less favorably
than similarly situated employees outside Olivarez’s protected class. The
court dismissed the ADA discrimination claim because the Second Amended
Complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show Olivarez was disabled.
Olivarez filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion to further
amend the complaint under Rule 15(a). The district court denied both
motions. The district court’s order did not discuss the reasons for denying
reconsideration, but it stated that it denied the motion to amend pursuant to
Rule 16(b). Olivarez timely appealed, but raises only the Title VII and ADA
claims.
We “review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de
novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff[].” Meador v. Apple, Inc., 911 F.3d 260,
264 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). Rule 12(b)(6) governs dismissal for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it demands more than . . .
‘labels and conclusions.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). And “[a]
complaint survives a motion to dismiss only if it pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Meador, 911 F.3d at 264 (quotation omitted).
II.
The Title VII discrimination claim presented here “relies entirely on
circumstantial evidence, and is therefore subject to the burden-shifting
framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792(1973).” Alkhawaldeh v. Dow Chem. Co., 851 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2017).
4
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of
discrimination. 411 U.S. at 802. Specifically, a plaintiff must allege facts
sufficient to support a finding “that he was treated less favorably than others
outside of his protected class.” Alkhawaldeh, 851 F.3d at 427.
Olivarez has failed to plead any facts indicating less favorable
treatment than others “similarly situated” outside of the asserted protected
class. See id. In fact, the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any
facts about any comparators at all. The complaint simply indicates that
Olivarez took six months of leave from September 2017 to February 2018—
including an extension granted by T-Mobile and Broadspire—and that when
Olivarez requested additional leave in March 2018, T-Mobile denied the
request and terminated Olivarez’s employment in April 2018.
Notably, there is no allegation that any non-transgender employee
with a similar job and supervisor and who engaged in the same conduct as
Olivarez received more favorable treatment. In sum, the Second Amended
Complaint does not plead any facts that would permit a reasonable inference
that T-Mobile terminated Olivarez because of gender identity.
Olivarez’s ADA discrimination claim fails for similar reasons. A
prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA requires a plaintiff to allege
a disability, that he was qualified for his position, and that he suffered an
adverse employment action because of his disability. Neely v. PSEG Tex., Ltd.
P’ship, 735 F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir. 2013). Olivarez failed to sufficiently allege
an adverse employment action because of disability. See id. At most, Olivarez
made a conclusory allegation that T-Mobile and Broadspire “discriminated
against [Olivarez] based on [a] disability.” But the Rule 8 pleading standard
demands more than conclusory statements. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “A
complaint survives a motion to dismiss only if it pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Meador, 911 F.3d at 264 (quotation omitted).
5
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
Finally, as for retaliation under Title VII, the claim is untimely. Title
VII requires a plaintiff to file an administrative charge no later than 300 days
“after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(e)(1). Olivarez alleges retaliation for complaining about a
supervisor’s demeaning and inappropriate comments in 2016, but did not file
an administrative charge until 2018. As a result, the retaliation claim is
untimely—a contention Olivarez does not dispute on appeal. See Brinkmann
v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1987)
(explaining that, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district
court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed).
III.
According to Olivarez, the district court should have reconsidered its
decision to dismiss the gender discrimination claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) allows a party to seek to alter or amend a
judgment “when there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law.” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567–68 (5th Cir.
2003). “Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary
remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d
473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). As a result, “[w]e review the denial of a Rule 59(e)
motion only for abuse of discretion.” Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154,
1159 (5th Cir. 1990).
Olivarez contends that, after the district court granted the motions to
dismiss, Bostock changed the law and eliminated the requirement for
comparator allegations and evidence in Title VII cases. T-Mobile and
Broadspire argue that Bostock did no such thing.
We agree with T-Mobile and Broadspire. Bostock defined sex
discrimination to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity
discrimination. But it did not alter the meaning of discrimination itself. In
particular, Bostock nowhere alters the requirement that a plaintiff under Title
6
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
VII must identify a more favorably treated comparator in order to establish
discrimination.
To the contrary, Bostock expressly reaffirms these principles. It states
that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or
transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned
in members of a different sex.” 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Moreover, Bostock
employs various hypothetical comparators to support its analysis. See, e.g.,
id. at 1741 (“Consider . . . an employer with two employees, both of whom
are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind,
materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a
woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the
fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits
or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.”).
Accordingly, there is no intervening change of law that warrants
reconsideration under Rule 59(e). 1
IV.
Finally, Olivarez argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying leave to amend the complaint, because the good cause standard
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) does not apply here.
“We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave
to amend.” S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315
F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003). “A district court possesses broad discretion in
its decision whether to permit amended complaints.” Crostley v. Lamar
Cnty., 717 F.3d 410, 420 (5th Cir. 2013).
1
Olivarez also argues that the district court erred in refusing to reconsider the
dismissal of the ADA claim. However, in the motion for reconsideration, Olivarez only
argued for reconsideration of the Title VII discrimination claim. “This court will not
consider arguments first raised on appeal.” Estate of Duncan v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,
890 F.3d 192, 202 (5th Cir. 2018). Olivarez has therefore forfeited this argument.
7
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
We have “ma[d]e clear that Rule 16(b) governs amendment of
pleadings after a scheduling order deadline has expired.” S&W Enters., 315
F.3d at 536. A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and
with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause
standard requires a showing by the movant that “the deadlines cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.”
S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535 (quotation omitted). It is “[o]nly upon the
movant’s demonstration of good cause to modify the scheduling order [that]
the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a) appl[ies] to the district court’s
decision to grant or deny leave.” Id. at 536.
The district court’s scheduling order set a deadline of March 13, 2020
for amendments with leave of court. Olivarez requested leave to amend the
First Amended Complaint on February 12, 2020. After denying the
defendants’ initial motions to dismiss, the court allowed Olivarez to file a
Second Amended Complaint on April 16, 2020. The court then granted the
defendants’ second motions to dismiss on April 30, 2020.
Olivarez filed a motion to submit a Third Amended Complaint on July
7, 2020—well after the court’s March 13 deadline. Accordingly, the district
court was correct to apply the good cause standard of Rule 16(b). Id. And
Olivarez failed to meet that standard. There is no explanation for the five-
month delay before pleading the facts and allegations in the Third Amended
Complaint. Nor is there any suggestion that any of those facts were
unavailable when filing the previous three complaints. Nor did Olivarez
request an opportunity to replead in response to the second motion to
dismiss. In sum, there is no good cause here to justify further amendment to
8
Case: 20-20463 Document: 00515859953 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-20463
the complaint. The district court accordingly did not abuse its discretion in
denying further leave to amend. 2
***
“Title VII protects every American, regardless of sexual orientation
or transgender status. It simply requires proof of sex discrimination.”
Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Co., 915 F.3d 328, 340 (5th Cir. 2019) (Ho, J.,
concurring). That was true before Bostock, and it remains true after Bostock.
Under Bostock, transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination
under Title VII. But a plaintiff claiming transgender discrimination under
Bostock must plead and prove just that—discrimination. We affirm.
2
Separate and apart from Rule 16(b), there is also the matter of Rule 15(a). Under
Rule 15(a), a district court may deny leave to amend when there has been “undue delay”
or “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Rosenzweig
v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted). The district court
here noted Olivarez “previously filed two amended complaints.” Olivarez failed to cure
the defects in those complaints despite notice from both the district court and the
defendants. See Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 567 (5th Cir.
2002) (explaining that, where the plaintiffs had “already filed an original complaint and
two amended complaints, each alleging [similar] claims,” they had been “given ample
opportunity to plead their statutory claims,” and therefore it was not an abuse of discretion
to deny leave to amend further). Denial was therefore proper under Rule 15(a) as well as
Rule 16(b).
9