Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trevillion v. Union Pacific Railroad

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

April 10, 2019

RUFUS TREVILLION, SR. AND LOLETTE TREVILLION
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

          Judge KAY

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a partial motion to dismiss and request for attorney fees filed by defendant Union Pacific Railroad (“Union Pacific.”) Doc. 12. The motion is unopposed.

         This motion has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636. For the reasons stated below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         On August 13, 2014, Rufus Trevillion, Sr. (hereafter “Trevillion”) was performing his job as Union Pacific's “Lead Bridge Tender” when a heated exchange took place between him and another Union Pacific employee. Doc. 1, pp. 3-4. Trevillion alleges that, after advising this employee about the need to conduct maintenance on one of the bridges maintained by Union Pacific, the employee became “belligerent, ” and assaulted him. Id. at 4.

         Following the incident, Trevillion was sent home by his supervisor. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that the following day he received a telephone call and was informed that he was “pulled out of service.” Id. at p. 5. By certified letter dated August 18, 2014, plaintiff alleges his employer asked that he undergo a medical review “based on Supervisor-Requested Evaluation” and he was told that, “once medical cleared him, he would be required to return to work.” Plaintiff describes the course of action between him and defendant during the relevant time period and then finally concludes that, since August 14, 2014, he has never returned to work. Id. at p. 9. He indicates Union Pacific granted him an initial “Medical Leave of Absence” from August 15, 2014 to October 15, 2014, that was eventually extended through January 31, 2015. Id. at 8. Plaintiff asserts that he never applied for this leave and that, despite having seen several doctors who found nothing medically wrong with him, Union Pacific hired a replacement for him on September 26, 2014. Id. at 7-8.

         On February 6, 2015, Trevillion filed a complaint of racial discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC.”) Id. at 9. On September 26, 2015, he amended his EEOC complaint to include violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA.”) Id. On February 8, 2018, the EEOC issued him a right to sue letter. Id.

         On May 4, 2018, Trevillion, and his wife, Lolette Trevillion, filed suit against Union Pacific in this court. Id. The petition alleges Union Pacific was discriminatory, retaliatory, and negligent in violation of state and federal law. Id. at 10-17.

         On November 2, 2018, Union Pacific filed the instant partial motion to dismiss and request for attorney fees. Doc. 12. Defendant asserts that all of plaintiffs' theories of recover under state law are time barred and/or barred by state law. Id. at 1. Additionally, it seeks attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:303(B) and La. R.S. 23:967(D). Id. Defendant's motion is unopposed.

         II. Law and Analysis

         Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for dismissal of a claim when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” When reviewing such a motion, the court should focus exclusively on the complaint and its attachments. Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2012). Such motions are also reviewed with the court “accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010).

         The court's task in evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is “not to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success, ” but instead to determine whether the claim is both legally cognizable and plausible. Billups v. Credit Bureau of Greater Shreveport, 2014 WL 4700254, *2 (W.D. La. 2014) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)). However, “[w]hile the district court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, it need not resolve unclear questions of law in favor of the plaintiff.” Kansa Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Congressional Mortgage Corp. of Texas, 20 F.3d 1362, 1366 (5th Cir.1994).

         A. Prescription of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.