Johnson v. Frost Bank

4:25-cv-04480Txsd6 de jul. de 2026

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ASHLEY M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
versus
FROST BANK,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-04480
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Ashley M. Johnson proceeds here pro se. She
brings employment-related claims under Title VII, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family Medical
Leave Act against Defendant Frost Bank. Dkt 1. The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Peter Bray. Dkt 6.
Pending is a motion by Defendant to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt 23. It contends that (i) Plaintiff’s Title
VII and ADA claims are time-barred, (ii) Plaintiff failed to
exhaust administrative remedies as to the Title VII color
and sex discrimination claims, and (iii) Plaintiff fails to
state a plausible claim for relief as to her Title VII, ADA,
and FMLA claims. Id at 5–19.
Judge Bray recommends that the motion to dismiss be
granted in part. Dkt 30. First, he recommends that the
Title VII and ADA claims be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to timely file suit after receiving a right-to-sue letter
from the EEOC. Id at 6–7. He also concludes that Plaintiff
failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant equitable tolling
of such claims. Ibid. Second, as to the FMLA retaliation
and interference claims, Judge Bray recommends that,
although Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege either claim at
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04480 Document 38 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
2
present, Plaintiff should be given leave to amend to address
pleading deficiencies. Id at 8–11.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 32. First, she objects to
the recommendation that her Title VII claim be dismissed
with prejudice. She contends that retaliatory conduct by
Defendant “immediately preceding the filing deadline
materially impaired [her] ability to timely investigate,
prepare, and file” this action, thus warranting equitable
tolling of the limitations period. Id at 3. Such assertions
don’t present the exceptional circumstances necessary to
justify equitable tolling for reasons stated in the
Memorandum and Recommendation. See Dkt 30 at 7.
Second, Plaintiff objects to analysis of her FMLA
retaliation and interference claims. Dkt 32 at 5–6. But such
objections are moot in light of her amended complaint,
which reasserts those claims. See Dkt 31 (first amended
complaint).
The objections filed by Plaintiff Ashley M. Johnson to
the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 32.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 30.
Case 4:25-cv-04480 Document 38 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3
3
The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction by Defendant Frost Bank is GRANTED IN PART.
Dkt 23.
The claims brought under Title VII and the ADA are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The claims brought under the FMLA for retaliation
and interference, as pleaded in the first amended
complaint, remain pending. Dkt 31.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 6, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04480 Document 38 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.