Haskett v. Cinco Energy Management Group

Citations: 161 F. Supp. 3d 465; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179395; 2015 WL 11144555Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. G-14-280

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas; February 28, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Phillip David Haskett, a 57-year-old landman, has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against Cinco Energy Management Group, a former employee of Cinco, and several unnamed clients and individuals. Haskett claims that he was not hired for a landman position due to age discrimination and allegations made by a former employee, Cameron Bettis, who purportedly informed Cinco management that Haskett was not a team player. Haskett asserts that he submitted his resume for multiple job openings at Cinco but received no responses, which led him to believe that the company was intentionally excluding older candidates. He alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the employment status of landmen. Cinco has moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, prompting Haskett to file an amended complaint. After reviewing the relevant documents and applicable law, the court granted Cinco's motion to dismiss, with further rationale provided in the opinion.

Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, requiring that claims meet the standards set forth in Rule 8(a). Specifically, the complaint must provide a short and plain statement that demonstrates entitlement to relief, including sufficient factual content to establish facial plausibility. This means that the facts alleged must allow for a reasonable inference of the defendant's liability, rather than mere possibilities of unlawful conduct. The threshold is that the complaint must not rely solely on labels or conclusions, nor should it present naked assertions without further factual enhancement.

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff's complaint must move beyond speculative levels of entitlement to relief, presenting factual allegations that, if assumed true, support a valid claim. Courts typically allow plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints to correct deficiencies unless it is evident that such amendments would be futile. This principle also applies to pro se pleadings, which are evaluated with more leniency. However, leave to amend can be denied if the proposed changes are deemed frivolous or legally insufficient, and prior unsuccessful amendments may justify dismissal with prejudice. District courts have discretion regarding these decisions, particularly when repeated failures to amend have occurred.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on age in hiring, firing, and other employment terms. To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to hire, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are in the protected age group, qualified for the position, rejected despite qualifications, and that the rejection occurred under circumstances suggesting age discrimination. A plaintiff must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the hiring failure.

In the case of Haskett, he claims to be a qualified 57-year-old landman who applied for various jobs with Cinco, which did not respond to his applications. He notes that a majority of Cinco's employees are under 40 years old. However, the court finds that Haskett's allegations do not sufficiently indicate age discrimination. He fails to specify the jobs he applied for or demonstrate that younger candidates were hired instead. Additionally, Haskett's assertion that a former employee indicated he was not a team player undermines his claim that age was the reason for his non-hiring.

The court concludes that Haskett's claims lack the necessary plausibility and are speculative, leading to their dismissal without leave to amend. Furthermore, his related request for a declaratory judgment regarding the classification of landmen as employees under the ADEA is also dismissed due to a lack of a viable underlying claim, resulting in no jurisdiction for the declaratory judgment. Both claims are dismissed as further amendments would be futile.

Haskett's claim of intentional interference with employment opportunities against an unknown former Cinco employee is treated as a tortious interference claim. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was independently tortious or wrongful, supported by five elements: 1) a reasonable probability of entering a business relationship with a third party; 2) the defendant's conscious desire to prevent this relationship or knowledge that interference was likely; 3) independently tortious or unlawful conduct by the defendant; 4) proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff; and 5) actual damage or loss suffered by the plaintiff. Haskett failed to allege sufficient facts to support these requirements, particularly lacking evidence of a reasonable probability of employment with Cinco absent the negative statements made by the former employee, or intent to interfere with Haskett’s job applications. Thus, this claim is dismissed without leave to amend.

Additionally, Haskett's claim for 'respondeat superior' is noted as not being an independent cause of action. Allegations regarding discrimination based on age by unknown Cinco clients do not meet the necessary pleading standards to survive a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Consequently, this claim is also dismissed without leave to amend, as any further amendment would be futile.

Ultimately, Cinco's motion to dismiss is granted without the opportunity for amendment, and a final judgment will be entered.