Woods v. Cantrell

ANTHONY J. WOODS v. LATOYA CANTRELL, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION No. 20-482 SECTION I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

March 16, 2021

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a motion¹ to dismiss plaintiff Anthony J. Woods's ("Woods") First Amended and Supplemental Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants LaToya Cantrell ("Cantrell"), Robert Matthews ("Matthews"), Rhonda Sidney ("Sidney"), N'Gai Smith ("Smith"), Elizabeth Robins ("Robins"), French Market Corporation ("French Market"), and the City of New Orleans (the "City" and, with the previously named defendants, the "defendants").² Woods opposes³ the motion, and the defendants submitted a reply⁴to that opposition, as well as a supplemental brief⁵ ordered by the Court. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in full, except as to his state law claims and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as well as those claims deemed not properly before the Court—those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Resolution of this matter has been delayed significantly—first after Woods's belated retention of counsel, and then following his subsequent termination of that very same counsel. While Woods has indicated to the Court that he has re-hired the same attorney he fired, she has not re-enrolled.

I.

This case arises from Woods's employment with French Market⁶ and his subsequent termination. Woods's original pro se complaint raised a claim of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, but included a statement that it was "brought to redress violation of at least twenty-one other statutes, doctrines, and 'laws.'⁷ After Woods retained counsel and consent to proceed before the magistrate was withdrawn,⁸ this Court conducted a status conference and ordered counsel to file an amended complaint to address the original complaint's deficiencies and ambiguities.⁹Woods's "First Amended and Supplemental Complaint" purports to incorporate by reference "all previously pled allegations, and incorporates his original complaint as if copied in extenso,"¹⁰ but adds a claim and clarifies others.¹¹ The Court will rely on the factual allegations contained in both complaints, but not claims or factual allegations made for the first time in Woods's replacement opposition, filed a year after his original complaint. See Estes v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 613 F. App'x 277, 280 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding that district court did not err in failing to consider factual allegations raised for first time in opposition because "when deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a district court generally 'must limit itself to the contents of the pleadings, including attachments thereto'" (quoting Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Marketing Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014))); see, e.g., Stewart v. Caton, No. 13-823, 2013 WL 4459981, at *9 (E.D. La. Aug. 16, 2013) (Barbier, J.).¹²

Accepting all factual assertions in Woods's complaints as true,¹³ the relevant facts are as follows. Woods began working for French Market on April 1, 2013.¹⁴ Hewas hired as a "laborer" but was eventually reassigned to work as a "painter."¹⁵ Turner, French Market's Executive Director, assigned defendant Smith to supervise Woods,¹⁶ empowering him to "discipline, suspend, [and] change [Woods's] work conditions."¹⁷

Woods claims that "prior incidents contributed to creating a hostile working environment towards him by staff members and employees."¹⁸ Smith "suspended [Woods] for ten days without reason" despite the fact that Woods "was the primary care provider for his terminally ill wife."¹⁹ Smith did so "on the basis that he was unable to locate" Woods.²⁰ In reality, Smith was "not at work during the allege [sic] time [Woods] was missing."²¹ That suspension was later overturned by the Commission.²² Woods "reported his concerns to Sidney, [French Market's human resources director,]²³ who failed to take any action on his behalf."²⁴

According to Woods, defendants "Turner, Sidney, and Smith are very light skinned people who are bias [sic] and prejudice [sic] against him because he is dark skinned."²⁵ French Market, "Turner, Sidney and Smith discriminated against[Woods] because of his color."²⁶ French Market, "Turner and Sidney refused to promote" Woods because he is "a dark-skinned black man."²⁷ Turner and Sidney treated "light-skinned employees . . . better than" they treated Woods.²⁸

Woods also alleges that "Smith verbally and physically assaulted employees in the presence of others and was recommended to anger management training which did not deter his demeanor."²⁹ "Smith [also]³⁰ called [Woods] and another employee lazy shiftless N words in the presence of other employees[.]"³¹ "[A]nd neither Turner nor Sidney took any corrective action after being informed of the incident."³²

Additionally, Woods "reported his religious convictions and practices to Smith and asked that his right to weekends office [sic] be recognized."³³ When he did so, though, Smith "changed his work schedule to compel his [sic] to work on weekend [sic] performing other job duties besides painting."³⁴ "Turner [and] Smith havescheduled weekends off for Matthews since the termination of his employment."³⁵ Moreover, while employed as a painter, Woods "was forced to work alone."³⁶ But after he was fired, French Market, Turner, and Smith "formed a paint crew to fulfill his job duties and responsibilities."³⁷

Woods adds that "Turner authorized and commissioned Smith to harass him during his tenure of employment."³⁸ Turner also failed to take "corrective action to ensure his rights as an employee."³⁹ Moreover, the City, French Market, "Turner or Sidney knew of the violations going on or should have known of the violations going on, [and] had the power to prevent the violations[, but] chose not to prevent civil and criminal violations against him."⁴⁰

On August 23, 2019, Woods was not scheduled to work, but came in to bring "his application for leave of pay" to Matthews, his acting supervisor.⁴¹ Matthews was on the phone when Woods arrived.⁴² Woods "entered . . . [Matthews's office] and placed the leave form on [Matthews's desk]" for processing.⁴³ The interruption enraged Matthews, who "threw the leave [form] on the floor."⁴⁴ Woods bent down topick up the form, at which point he saw "Matthews . . . standing over him with a screwdriver in one hand and [a] radio in the other hand in an attack position."⁴⁵ Woods feared he would lose his life or suffer "bodily injuries."⁴⁶ Acting on this fear, he "reflex reacted and subdued" Matthews "by grabbing his hand and pushing him against the wall."⁴⁷ The incident ended as quickly as it began, and Matthews told Woods that he "thought [they] were playing."⁴⁸ The two left the office together and rode the elevator upstairs to copy Woods's leave form, then returned, also using the elevator.⁴⁹ Matthews did not report the incident to French Market security or Sidney, despite both being nearby.⁵⁰

The same day, Turner sent Woods a notice of termination, alleging that he violated Civil Service Rule XI.1.1;⁵¹ Smith "never contacted" Woods regarding the firing.⁵² On August 26, 2019, Woods appealed his termination to the Commission.⁵³ On September 5, 2019, after a hearing was scheduled, Woods received a "Notificationof Emergency Suspension and Notice of Pre-Termination Hearing,"⁵⁴ informing him that he was being suspended without pay for thirty days beginning August 29, 2019 and that a pre-termination hearing would be held September 11, 2019.⁵⁵ Woods alleges that Turner drafted the document "informing after termination."⁵⁶

At some point after Woods's initial termination, defendant Robins, an attorney for the City, "made contact with him . . . and solicited him to agree to" waive his appeal of his initial termination.⁵⁷ She "refused to identify herself" while doing so, in an attempt to "disguise[] herself . . . and her representation of [French Market] and Turner . . . prior to completion of suspension date [sic] in attempt [sic] to correct the wrongful termination."⁵⁸

On September 11, 2019, Robins "improperly influenced" the Commission to dismiss Woods's initial appeal as moot "on the basis [that] his termination was rescinded on September 5, 2019."⁵⁹ She also prevailed on the Commission to "removehis appeal from the docket."⁶⁰ She did so by emailing Stacie E. Joseph ("Joseph"), "requesting a continuance of the hearing set for appeal on October 24, 2019, due to City attorney mandatory in-service meeting."⁶¹ She also "fraudulently misrepresented to [Joseph] that appeal no. 9067 had been resolved on the basis of an agreement with [Woods] or withdrawal of [his] disciplinary action."⁶²

On September 23, 2019, "Robins represented to [Joseph] that[] she would file [an] MSD⁶³ to [Woods's] appeal requesting removal of the appeal and [that] the matter be placed before the Commission when she file [sic] the MSD."⁶⁴ However, she never filed the MSD.⁶⁵

After receiving a second termination letter, dated September 20, 2019,⁶⁶ Woods "was compelled to file a second appeal to [the Commission] to challenge the validity and veracity of the adverse employment action being imposed upon him by" the "conspiratorial, discriminatory, and unlawful employment practices" of Robins and Turner.⁶⁷

On November 21, 2019, the Commission held a hearing on that appeal.⁶⁸ "During the hearing, it was ascertained that[] Turner and Sidney collaborated to file the notice of terminations predicated on their conjectures and perceptions of the event between Matthews and" Woods, and that neither they nor Smith had investigated the incident.⁶⁹ Matthews offered "conflicting testimony under oath" about the incident and the events that followed.⁷⁰

Woods alleges that, this hearing and the pending ruling notwithstanding, the "defendants acted in concert to deprive and deny [him of] his freedom of speech to contest the allegations made against him."⁷¹ They also "falsely and wrongfully terminated his employment...