Court Opinion

ID: 9895404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 01:02:26.399314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:29.895075
License: Public Domain

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