Beasley v. Harden Jr. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Brittani Beasley,
Plaintiff,
v.
13 Strikes, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-04912
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	opinion 	addresses 	four 	motions 	pending 	in 	this 	employment
dispute, 1 two of which are motions for summary judgment—one filed by
Plaintiff Brittani Beasley, Dkt. 107, and the other filed by Defendant 13
Strikes, LLC, Dkt. 113. 	Beasley also filed a motion to consolidate this case
with a later-filed suit in this Court, No. 4:25-cv-06074, Dkt. 118, which motion
she has since withdrawn, Dkt. 123. 	And 13 Strikes filed a motion to amend
the scheduling order. Dkt. 121.
After carefully considering the motions, the responses, Dkts. 114, 117,
the reply, Dkt. 115, and the applicable law, it is recommended that 13 Strikes’s
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 113) be granted and Beasley’s motion for
1 This opinion does not address the pending motion in limine (Dkt. 122).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 12

2
summary judgment (Dkt. 107) be denied. It is further ordered that 13 Strikes’s
motion to amend the scheduling order (Dkt. 121) is granted. Beasley’s motion
to consolidate (Dkt. 118), having been withdrawn, Dkt. 123, is terminated.
Background
The background to this case is detailed in the undersigned’s prior
Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 89), which was adopted by this
Court (Dkt. 104). 	See Beasley v. Thirteen Strikes, LLC, 2025 WL 3245070, at
*1-3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2025), adopted by 2025 WL 3244443 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20,
2025). Below is a summary of facts pertinent to Beasley’s sole remaining claim
that she was denied a promotion based on her race (African American) or color
(self-described as “dark skinned,” Dkt. 107 at 3).
The restaurant Thirteen by James Harden (“Thirteen”), owned and
operated by 13 Strikes, hired Beasley as a host in July 2021. 	Dkt. 113-1 at 2
(Declaration of Leza Narducci, former 13 Strikes employee). 	Before that,
Beasley had eight years of general management experience. 	Dkt. 113-2 at 10
(Beasley’s deposition). 	Within one year, Beasley was promoted to lead host,
Dkt. 113-1 at 2, and then to Interim Assistant General Manager in February
2023, Dkt. 107-1 at 100 (13 Strikes’s EEOC position statement).
According 	to 	Beasley, 	she 	was 	then 	offered 	the 	General 	Manager
position. 	Dkt. 107 at 3 (citing Dkt. 107-1 at 2 (PX-A, March 23, 2023 text
message from Beasley to John Ricks, Thirteen’s Chief Operating Officer, that
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 12

3
“$1800 a week would work” for her salary); Dkt. 107-1 at 11 (PX-B, April 3,
2023 email from Derrick Mack, Thirteen’s Director of Operations, attaching
the General Manager job description)). 	13 Strikes, however, maintains that
although Beasley and Mack discussed the possibility of hiring a General
Manager, Thirteen decided not to do so until November 2023. Dkt. 113-1 at 3.
Meanwhile, 	Beasley 	claims 	that 	she 	reported 	alleged 	pay 	discrepancies
between herself, Brandalyn Trahan, another African American employee, and
Heather Grimm, a Caucasian employee. Dkt. 107 at 4 (citing Dkt. 107-1 at 22-
24 (PX-E email titled “Promotions/pay for managers and MITs”)).
Beasley was not promoted to General Manager. Instead, she was offered
a position as Hosting Event Coordinator. Dkt. 113-1 at 3; Dkt. 107-1 at 33 (PX-
H, Hosting Event Coordinator job description Beasley was provided). 	On
September 5, 2023, Beasley resigned from Thirteen. Dkt. 113-1 at 3.
Beasley 	filed 	a 	charge 	with 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”). Dkt. 30 at 4-5. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter
on September 18, 2024. Id. at 7. Beasley filed this suit on December 13, 2024,
Dkt. 1, and then amended her complaint, Dkt. 5. 	That pleading named 13
Strikes and two individuals, James E. Harden Jr. and Monja Willis, as
defendants. See Dkt. 5 at 1. The Court dismissed Beasley’s claims against the
individuals but granted her leave to amend. See Dkt. 18 (adopting Dkt. 16).
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 12

4
Beasley’s 	second 	amended 	complaint 	added 	Landmark 	Houston
Hospitality Group, LLC (“Landmark”) as a defendant. 	See Dkt. 17. 	Beasley
was granted leave to file a third amended complaint solely to elaborate on her
theories of liability against Landmark. See Dkt. 29 at 2.
Beasley’s third amended complaint lodged the following claims against
13 Strikes and Landmark: (1) wage discrimination, failure to promote, hostile
work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; (2)
“failure 	to 	disclose 	job 	responsibilities”; 	(3) 	negligence; 	(4) 	fraudulent
inducement; and (5) defamation. Dkt. 30 at 1, 9-11, 13-21. Finding that most
of Beasley’s Title VII claims were not administratively exhausted and that her
remaining claims were deficient, the Court dismissed all but Beasley’s failure
to promote claim against 13 Strikes. 	See Dkt. 104 (adopting Dkt. 89). 	The
Court also found that Beasley’s claims against Landmark were untimely and
dismissed all her claims against it. 	Id. 	Beasley’s sole remaining claim is her
Title VII failure to promote claim against 13 Strikes.
Beasley moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 107. 13 Strikes responded,
Dkt. 114, and Beasley replied, Dkt. 115. 	13 Strikes also moved for summary
judgment, Dkt. 113, to which Beasley responded, Dkt. 117. Beasley then filed
a motion to consolidate this case with her related case, Beasley v. Harden et
al., 4:25-cv-06074, which is pending before U.S. District Judge David Hittner
and likewise referred to the undersigned for pretrial management. 	Dkt. 118.
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 12

5
But she recently withdrew the request for consolidation. 	Dkt. 123. 	For its
part, 13 Strikes filed a motion to amend the scheduling order. 	Dkt. 121. 	The
motions are ripe for resolution.
Legal Standard
Summary judgment is warranted if “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A dispute is genuine ‘if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’”
Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 546 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). 	A fact is material if the issue it
addresses “could affect the outcome of the action.” 	Dyer v. Houston, 964 F.3d
374, 379-80 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy
Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010)).
When resolving a motion for summary judgment, courts must view the
facts 	and 	any 	reasonable 	inferences 	“in 	the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	the
nonmoving party.” Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 611 F.3d 299, 304
(5th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). 	“[T]he court must disregard all evidence
favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe, and
should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmoving party ….” Union
Pac. Res. Grp., Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 247 F.3d 574, 584 (5th Cir. 2001).
In addition, courts must credit all reasonable inferences from the evidence,
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 12

6
without “weigh[ing] evidence or mak[ing] credibility findings.” Seigler v. Wal-
Mart 	Stores 	Tex., 	LLC, 	30 	F.4th 	472, 	476 	(5th 	Cir. 	2022). 	But
“[u]nsubstantiated 	assertions, 	improbable 	inferences, 	and 	unsupported
speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Luna
v. Davis, 59 F.4th 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Brown v. City of Hou.,
337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003)).
Analysis
I. 	Beasley has not made a prima facie showing that she was denied
a promotion because of her race or color.
As Defendants argue, Beasley’s failure-to-promote claim fails because
she cannot establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. 	See Dkt. 113
at 	6-8; 	Dkt. 	114 	at 	4-7. 	To 	meet 	her 	burden, 	Beasley 	would 	need 	to
demonstrate that (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she sought and
was qualified for a position for which applicants were being sought; (3) she was
rejected for the position; and (4) the employer either hired someone outside her
protected group or continued to seek applicants with her qualifications. 	See
Johnson v. PRIDE Indus., Inc., 7 F.4th 392, 406 (5th Cir. 2021). 	Only upon
making that showing would the burden shift to 13 Strikes to “articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for its actions. See id. And if 13 Strikes
did so, the burden would rest on Beasley to show that “the reason proffered by
[13 Strikes] is a mere pretext for unlawful discrimination.” See id.
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 12

7
Beasley, who is African American, belongs to a protected group. See Dkt.
107 at 2; Dkt. 114 at 5. But Beasley has not shown that she was qualified for
the General Manager position that she was allegedly denied—the second
element—or that 13 Strikes filled that position with someone outside of her
protected group or otherwise acted with discriminatory intent—the fourth
element. As a result, her claim is barred as a matter of law.
A. 	Beasley has not shown she was qualified for the position.
Even assuming that Beasley had applied for, and was denied, the
General Manager position, her discrimination claim would nevertheless fail
unless 	she 	was 	qualified 	for 	that 	job. 	“An 	employer 	may 	establish 	job
requirements and rely on them in arguing that a prima facie case is not
established because the employee is not ‘qualified.’ 	However, only objective
requirements may be used in making this argument.” 	Johnson v. Louisiana,
351 F.3d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., Inc., 238
F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir 2001)). Here, the evidence does not reflect that Beasley
satisfied the objective requirements to serve as General Manager.
The job description states that the General Manager position requires
“[e]xtensive previous experience in restaurant Management: Minimum five
years of experience in a service-oriented or hospitality industry.” Dkt 107-1 at
16 (PX-C). 	Beasley contends she was qualified because she has eight years of
management experience, generally. 	Dkt. 115 at 2. 	13 Strikes responds that
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 12

8
Beasley’s managerial experience was not in a restaurant or other hospitality
setting. 	Dkt. 113 at 6-7 (citing Dkt. 113-2 at 5-6 (DX-B, Beasley’s deposition
that she previously worked as a “host” and did “catering”)); Dkt. 114 at 6.
Beasley’s managerial experience does not fit the job qualifications. 	By
her own account, Beasley’s previous restaurant experience was limited to
taking catering orders and working as a host. See Dkt. 113-2 at 5-7 (testifying
about working at McAlister’s Deli and at Steak 48). Neither of those positions
entailed management roles. 	See id. at 7. 	Rather, Beasley held general
manager positions only in non-restaurant and non-hospitality settings. 	Dkt.
113-2 at 10 (listing multiple retail stores). 	Beasley’s work history is “facially
insufficient to satisfy the minimum criteria” for the General Manager role. See
Davis v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding
that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs could not show they
met the job qualifications).
In contrast, 13 Strikes proffers evidence that Sean Knight, who was
eventually hired as General Manager, had extensive restaurant management
experience. 	Knight had worked as a Regional Operations Manager for Alife
Hospitality Group, which owned and operated several restaurant brands in the
Houston area. 	See Dkt. 113-3 at 2-3 (DX-3, Ricks’s declaration). 	He also
worked at Vic & Anthony’s Steakhouse, where he “oversaw staffing operations,
communicated daily objectives, trained new hires, and conducted routine
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 12

9
evaluations ….” Id. at 3. And he served as a Director of Operations at Chick-
fil-A, managing 238 staff members. Id.
Beasley’s lack of evidence that she met the qualifications for the General
Manager position defeats her failure-to-promote claim. 	That deficiency alone
forecloses recovery, warranting summary judgment for 13 Strikes.
B. 	No evidence shows that 13 Strikes hired someone outside
of 	Beasley’s 	protected 	group 	or 	otherwise 	acted 	with
discriminatory intent.
Beasley also fails to show that 13 Strikes hired someone outside her
protected class or otherwise discriminated against her on the basis of race
when denying her the General Manager role. First, it is necessary to identify
the relevant comparator. 	As Beasley notes, Dkt. 117 at 5, 13 Strikes’s EEOC
position statement mentioned the hiring of another individual, Diane Escotto,
to Thirteen’s Assistant General Manager position. 	Dkt. 107-1 at 100 (PX-AA,
13 Strikes’s position statement). 	But as Beasley observes, that is not the
pertinent position here. 	Dkt. 117 at 5. 	Instead, the relevant comparator is
Knight, whom Thirteen ultimately hired as its General Manager.
Knight, like Beasley, is a dark-skinned African-American individual.
Dkt. 113 at 8; Dkt. 113-3 at 2 (DX-3, Ricks’s declaration). Because Beasley and
Knight share the same protected class, Beasley cannot show she was rejected
in favor of someone outside her protected group. 	See McMullin v. Miss. Dep’t
of Pub. Safety, 782 F.3d 251, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2015).
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 12

10
Nor 	Beasley 	has 	otherwise 	shown 	that 	her 	race 	or 	color 	was 	a
“motivating factor” in the decision not to promote her. 	See Byers v. Dall.
Morning News, 209 F.3d 419, 427 (5th Cir. 2000). Beasley posits that Thirteen
denied 	her 	the 	promotion 	in 	“retaliation” 	for 	complaining 	about 	wage
discrimination. 	See Dkt. 107 at 4. 	But this Court dismissed Beasley’s
retaliation claim because she failed to exhaust it. Dkt. 104 (adopting Dkt. 89).
She cannot revive it here to bolster her separate denial-of-promotion claim.
Beasley also claims that Mack sent text messages asking for “more
diversity” in Thirteen’s hiring and directing her to go to “white clubs” to find
“white promoters.” Dkt. 107 at 10 (citing Dkt. 107-1 at 137 (PX-CC, screenshot
of a text message from an unsaved number stating: “We need more diversity.”);
Dkt. 107-1 at 140 (PX-DD, screenshot of a text message from an unsaved
number stating: “Any white promoters?” and “Need to go to white clubs to find
white promoters.”)). Even if these screenshots could be authenticated, nothing
links those purported statements to the challenged promotion decision. To the
contrary, the person who was chosen for General Manager shares the same
protected 	class 	as 	Beasley 	and 	had 	extensive 	restaurant 	management
experience that Beasley lacked. 	There is no indication that Beasley’s race or
color had anything to do with that decision. 	13 Strikes’s motion for summary
judgment should be granted, and Beasley’s cross-motion on the same claim
should be denied.
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 12

11
II. 	13 Strikes’s motion to amend the scheduling order is granted.
As a final procedural issue, 13 Strikes filed a motion to amend the
scheduling order, observing that docket call is currently set for August 14,
2026, and that the Court’s resolution of the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment may obviate the need for trial preparation. 	Dkt. 121; see also Dkt.
64 (Docket Control Order). The motion is designated as opposed. See id. at 5.
Continuance of all remaining deadlines is appropriate. 	If this Court
adopts the undersigned’s recommendation to grant summary judgment for
13 Strikes, then no trial will occur. 	To maximize efficiency, the better course
is to vacate the deadlines for the joint pretrial order and docket call, which will
avert the need to expend further resources until the District Judge determines
whether any part of this case should proceed to trial.
Recommendation and Order
It is RECOMMENDED that Defendant 13 Strikes, LLC’s motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 113) be GRANTED, that Plaintiff Brittani Beasley’s
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 107) be DENIED, and that all of Brittani
Beasley’s claims against it be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is ORDERED that Beasley’s motion to consolidate (Dkt. 118) this suit
with Case No. 4:25-cv-06074 is WITHDRAWN.
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 12

12
It is further ORDERED that 13 Strike’s motion to amend the scheduling
order (Dkt. 121) is GRANTED, and the remaining deadlines for the joint
pretrial order and docket call are hereby VACATED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on July 13, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
______________________________________
Y	Yvvvooon	nne Y. Hooo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04912 Document 124 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 12