Sacks v. Texas Southern Univ

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 15, 2023
• Docket: 22-20474
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

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