Court Opinion

ID: 9905747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:43.888558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.320259
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40214        Document: 00516983948             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

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

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              November 29, 2023
                                      No. 23-40214                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Lonzell Brown,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   City of Anna City Hall; Lee Lewis Construction,
   Incorporated; Paramount Trade Solutions; Don Burton
   & Associates, Incorporated,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-571
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Pro se Plaintiff–Appellant Lonzell Brown alleges that Defendants–
   Appellants City of Anna City Hall, Lee Lewis Construction, Inc., Don Burton

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40214         Document: 00516983948               Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                          No. 23-40214

   and Associates, 1 and Paramount Trade Solutions discriminated against him
   on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984. 2
   Brown accuses Defendants–Appellants of underpaying people of color and
   failing to post federal employment policies. The City of Anna, Lee Lewis
   Construction, and Don Burton and Associates moved to dismiss Brown’s
   complaint, and Paramount Trade Solutions moved for summary judgment.
   Each raised the same defense: Brown cannot bring a Title VII claim against it
   because it was not his employer. The district court, relying on a magistrate
   judge’s report and recommendations, granted Defendants–Appellants’
   motions. Brown appeals.
                                     Motions to Dismiss
           We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant a motion to
   dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lampton v. Diaz, 639
   F.3d 223, 225 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “[A]ccepting all well-
   pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the
   plaintiffs,” 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 v. Apple, Inc., 911
   F.3d 260, 264 (5th Cir. 2018) (first quoting Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc.,
   540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008), then quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
   662, 678 (2009)). We construe pro se complaints liberally, but “regardless of
   whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel,

           _____________________
           1
           Variously referred to in briefing and exhibits as “Don Burdon and Associates”
   and “Don Burden and Associates.”
           2
             Brown also references the Davis Bacon Act of 1931, but his complaint’s only cause
   of action is under Title VII. And the Davis Bacon Act, in the context referenced by Brown,
   does not confer a private right of action on employees. See Univs. Rsch. Ass’n, Inc. v. Coutu,
   450 U.S. 754, 770 (1981).

                                                 2
Case: 23-40214      Document: 00516983948          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                    No. 23-40214

   conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
   conclusions will not suffice.” Prescott v. UTMB Galveston Tex., 73 F.4th 315,
   318 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378
   (5th Cir. 2002)).
          “[T]he purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their
   employers’ unlawful actions.” Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S.
   170, 178 (2011). As such, only those “in employment relationships with the
   defendant” may bring such claims. Simmons v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 972 F.3d
   664, 669 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Body by Cook, Inc. v. State Far Mut. Auto.
   Ins., 869 F.3d 381, 391 (5th Cir. 2017) (“To maintain a claim under Title VII,
   the plaintiff must demonstrate an ‘employment relationship’ between the
   plaintiff and the defendant.”). An employer is one who has the right to
   control an employee’s conduct, including the right to hire, fire, supervise,
   and pay the employee. Muhammad v. Dall. County Cmty. Supervision & Corr.
   Dep’t, 479 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Brown’s complaint fails to plausibly allege an employment
   relationship with the City of Anna, Lee Lewis Construction, or Don Burton
   and Associates. On his application to proceed in forma pauperis in the district
   court, Brown indicated that his employer was Paramount Trade Solutions.
   He also pleads “collectively,” referencing Defendants–Appellants together
   as a group, rather than alleging facts plausibly suggesting that each individual
   entity was his employer as the statute defines it. See Dixon v. Primary Health
   Servs. Ctr., Civ. No. 10-1490, 2011 WL 1326841, at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 3,
   2011) (footnote omitted) (“Although plaintiff alleges that she was
   ‘employed’ by ‘defendants,’ she has not set forth facts to demonstrate that
   defendants, Tonore and PHSC Board of Directors, satisfied Title VII’s
   statutory definition of ‘employer.’”), report and recommendation adopted,
   2011 WL 1298643 (W.D. La. Apr. 5, 2011). Brown points to pay stubs which
   suggest that he worked for Paramount on a project for customer “Don

                                          3
Case: 23-40214         Document: 00516983948               Page: 4      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                          No. 23-40214

   Burden and Associates” on “Anna City Hall.” However, merely working on
   a project for these entities does not establish a plausible employment
   relationship with them, such that they had the right to control his conduct,
   which is the “most important component” of an employment relationship.
   Muhammad, 479 F.3d at 380. 3
           Title VII claims may be brought against employers only, and Brown’s
   complaint fails to allege that he was in an employment relationship with
   Defendants–Appellants. The district court correctly granted Defendants–
   Appellants’ motions to dismiss. 4
                                  Motion for Summary Judgment
           Brown also appeals the district court’s order granting Paramount’s
   motion for summary judgment. We also review a district court’s grant of
   summary judgment de novo. United States ex rel. Schweizer v. Canon, Inc., 9
   F.4th 269, 273 (5th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is proper when the record
   shows that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
   movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
           Unlike the other Defendants–Appellants, Paramount does not dispute
   that Brown did work for it at some point. However, it asserts that he did not
   do so during the time period relevant to his complaint. The district court
   granted Paramount’s motion for summary judgment on that basis.

           _____________________
           3
             Brown does not allege that Defendants–Appellants were in a “joint employer”
   relationship. See N. Am. Soccer League v. NLRB, 613 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir. 1980).
           4
              These Defendants–Appellants also assert that Brown’s complaint (1) failed to
   state a claim, as it did not make out a prima facie case of discrimination, or (2) to properly
   allege that Brown had satisfied his exhaustion responsibilities. Because we affirm the
   district court’s dismissal on the basis of Brown’s failure to allege an employment
   relationship, we do not reach these matters.

                                                 4
Case: 23-40214      Document: 00516983948          Page: 5   Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                    No. 23-40214

          Brown attached to his complaint the Charge of Discrimination forms
   that he submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
   (“EEOC”). Each Charge contains the same “particulars”: “PERSONAL
   HARM: a. Starting in or around January 2021, until my resignation in or
   around July 2021, I was paid approximately $24 dollars per hour while
   similarly situated non-Black individuals in the same position, performing the
   same job duties, were paid approximately $26 - $28 dollars per hour.” The
   relevant time period for his complaint, then, is from January through July
   2021. However, the undisputed evidence before the district court established
   that Brown did not begin working for Paramount until September 2021.
   Therefore, from January 2021 to July 2021, Paramount had no “right to
   control” Brown’s conduct. See Muhammad, 479 F.3d at 380. Brown and
   Paramount were not in an employment relationship during the relevant time
   period, and Paramount cannot be held liable under Title VII for events that
   occurred during that period.
          To the extent that Brown alleges that Paramount discriminated
   against him at a later date, he has not exhausted that claim. As Paramount
   observes, a Title VII lawsuit is limited to the scope of the EEOC charge and
   any resulting investigation. Fine v. GAF Chem. Corp., 995 F.2d 576, 578 (5th
   Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) (“[A] rule of reason . . . permits the scope of a
   Title VII suit to extend as far as, but no further than, the scope of the EEOC
   investigation which could reasonably grow out of the administrative
   charge.”). We agree with the district court that, when a plaintiff identifies a
   distinct time period in an EEOC charge, he or she cannot bring a Title VII
   claim based on events that occurred totally outside that period. See Ganheart
   v. Brown, 740 Fed. App’x. 386, 390 (5th Cir. 2018) (pro se plaintiff precluded
   from bringing claims that occurred after the dates identified in the charge).
   To be more specific, a plaintiff cannot rely on the initial EEOC charge as
   evidence of exhausting claims based on later events. Brown is not barred from

                                          5
Case: 23-40214         Document: 00516983948               Page: 6      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                          No. 23-40214

   initiating a Title VII suit against Paramount for discrimination beginning in
   September 2021, but he may not rely on this EEOC Charge to do so, as it does
   not encompass the scope of that alleged discrimination. 5
           The district court’s grant of summary judgment was also proper. All
   rulings and judgments of that court are AFFIRMED. 6

           _____________________
           5
              Neither would this Charge be “reasonably expected” to trigger an EEOC
   investigation into race discrimination by Paramount beginning in September 2021, as it
   focuses on a time period when Brown had not even begun working there. See Pacheco v.
   Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 789–90 (5th Cir. 2006).
           6
             In his briefing, Brown also complains that the district court erred by not “joining”
   all defendants, such that he had to “unfairly reply to five defendants.” This is a
   misinterpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Additionally, Brown did not raise
   the issue of joinder in his notice of appeal. See Ingraham v. United States, 808 F.2d 1075,
   1080 (5th Cir. 1987).

                                                 6