Court Opinion

ID: 9910611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 01:00:45.391228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:30.592490
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20474         Document: 00517003952             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                  December 15, 2023
                                       No. 22-20474                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   Deana Pollard Sacks,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Texas Southern University; Ahunanya Anga; James
   Douglas; Fernando Colon-Navarro; Ana Otero; April
   Walker,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:18-CV-3563
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Deana Sacks, a white woman, worked as a law professor at Texas
   Southern University’s (“TSU”) Thurgood Marshall School of Law from
   2000 to 2020. While there, she alleges that she endured various forms of
   discrimination, including physical and verbal altercations, see, e.g., ROA.250,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20474         Document: 00517003952              Page: 2       Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                          No. 22-20474

   retaliation for her EEOC complaints, see ROA.284–87; ROA.1566–79, and
   unequal pay, see ROA.262–68.
           Sacks sued TSU and five of its faculty members. She raised five
   federal claims †: (1) Title VII sex discrimination, (2) Title VII race
   discrimination, (3) Title VII retaliation, (4) Equal Pay Act (“EPA”)
   violations, and (5) violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process
   Clause, and the Fourth Amendment. At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the district
   court dismissed claims (1), (3), and (5) in whole or in part. ROA.400–01.
   The remaining claims proceeded to discovery. During discovery, a
   magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Sacks’s motion to compel.
   ROA.769–71. The district court also denied Sacks’s motion to amend her
   complaint (for the third time). ROA.2472 n. 1. Then the district court
   granted summary judgment on claims (2) and (5). ROA.2500. Finally,
   Sacks’s EPA claim (4) proceeded to trial. There, the jury found for TSU.
   ROA.3464–77. Sacks moved for a jury investigation and new trial.
   ROA.3570–92; ROA.3622–38. The district court denied both motions.
   ROA.3645–53; ROA.3653–54.
           We have fully reviewed the district court’s orders dismissing Sacks’s
   Title VII claims (1), (2), and (3); her constitutional claims (5); and its denial
   of Sacks’s motions for leave to amend her complaint, jury investigation, and
   new trial. As to those orders, we affirm for substantially the reasons given by
   the district court. We have also reviewed the partial denial of Sacks’s motion
   to compel and find no abuse of discretion. See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
   Co., 392 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Crosby v. La.
   Health Servs. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 261 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2011) (applying
           _____________________
           †
             She also raised a claim under Texas state law for invasion of privacy. The district
   court dismissed that claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Sacks did not appeal that dismissal, so we
   do not discuss that claim further.

                                                2
Case: 22-20474     Document: 00517003952           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                    No. 22-20474

   abuse of discretion review to a magistrate’s discovery decision where the
   plaintiff timely challenged that decision below).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3