Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Betty Parrimore, an attorney employed by the Galveston County Misdemeanor Mental Health Public Defender’s Office, took FMLA medical leave beginning in June 2023. While she was on leave, Chief Public Defender Thomas Wooten criticized her work and later sent her a warning letter alleging failures to withdraw from cases and unauthorized attendance at a continuing-education program. Parrimore returned to work in August 2023 and was terminated in February 2024.
Representing herself, Parrimore sued Galveston County, Wooten, and the Office for FMLA interference, retaliation, and harassment or hostile work environment. Defendants moved to dismiss and separately moved under Rule 12(f) to strike exhibits attached to Parrimore’s response.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison recommended granting the motion to dismiss. The Office lacked capacity to be sued because Parrimore did not show that Galveston County had granted it a separate juridical existence. Her interference claim also failed because she received her requested leave, returned to her job, and did not allege that defendants denied her any FMLA benefit or caused actionable prejudice. Her voluntary surgery rescheduling and Wooten’s limited communications during leave did not establish interference.
The retaliation claim failed because the work-related criticisms were not materially adverse actions and the complaint did not plausibly connect Parrimore’s termination to her FMLA leave. Approximately 236 days separated the start of her leave and her termination, and she alleged no additional facts supporting causation. The proposed harassment or hostile-work-environment claim also failed because the Fifth Circuit has not recognized such a cause of action under the FMLA.
The magistrate judge denied the motion to strike because Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings, not a response brief or its exhibits. He nevertheless excluded several exhibits from the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis because they were outside the pleadings, while considering the Texas Workforce Commission appeal decision incorporated into the complaint.
Key Takeaways
- An employee who receives the requested FMLA leave and returns to the same job must identify some denied benefit and resulting prejudice to plead interference.
- A 236-day gap between protected leave and termination did not establish retaliation by temporal proximity alone, and the complaint alleged no additional facts plausibly linking the two events.
- Rule 12(f) did not authorize striking exhibits attached to a motion response, although the court could exclude materials outside the pleadings when deciding the dismissal motion.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that workplace criticism, changed office rules, and a later termination do not by themselves state an FMLA claim. A plaintiff must plead facts showing denial of an FMLA entitlement or a plausible causal connection between protected activity and materially adverse action.
The decision also highlights an important procedural distinction: denying a Rule 12(f) motion does not require a court to consider extra-pleading evidence at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. The parties may file objections to the recommendation within 14 days of service.