Case: 20-30783 Document: 00516107675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2021 No. 20-30783 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Luis Sanchez, formerly known as John Doe, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:19-CV-11232 Before Jones, Southwick, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* An employee sued his employer for discrimination and retaliation under various federal statutes. Service on the defendants was untimely. Rather than dismiss the case, the magistrate judge allowed the employee to amend his complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-30783 Document: 00516107675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 No. 20-30783 Ultimately, though, the magistrate judge dismissed the case for failure to comply with several court orders and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We REVERSE and REMAND. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Luis Sanchez filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against his former employer, Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company. He brought claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for “unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin, a hostile work environment, retaliation, a retaliatory hostile work environment, and to provide appropriate relief.” 1 Sanchez claimed that the discrimination and harassment he experienced were due to his Puerto Rican heritage. Service of process on Chevron proved difficult and was not completed within the 90-day limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Chevron sought dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) due to the failure to serve timely and, alternatively, because the complaint had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The parties then consented to having a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings and enter a final judgment. That consent causes us to refer to the magistrate judge as the “district court” in this opinion. 1 The initial complaint stated a claim only for national-origin discrimination under Section 1981, which Chevron argued in its first motion supported dismissal for failure to state a claim. The last complaint filed may have improperly grouped national-origin discrimination under Section 1981, but it explicitly alleged racial discrimination. The relevant heading, with various forms of emphasis removed, read: “claims of race and national origin discrimination within the four year 42 USC § 1981 statute of limitations and background information for Title VII hostile work environment claims based on race and national origins.” 2 Case: 20-30783 Document: 00516107675 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 No. 20-30783 In its first order, the district court agreed with Chevron that the complaint was insufficient because it amounted to “a 25-page stream of consciousness-like recitation of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals