Onitiri v. Seal Security

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that where the plaintiff neglected to check the box to simultaneously file her EEOC charge with the TWC, the plaintiff had not met the exhaustion requirement under the Texas Labor Code
• denying motion to dismiss IIED claim because the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to support her allegation that she was “mentally, emotionally, and physically damaged and distraught” by the defendant’s actions
• dismissing a plaintiff's ITED claim because it was preempted by her Title VII claim
• first citing United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 555 n.4 (1977); and then citing Price v. Choctaw Glove & Safety Co., Inc., 459 F.3d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 2006)
• neither citing nor discussing Creditwatch but noting: “Howe states that Andrews cannot rely on Title VII preemption, because he is not an employer. The Court agrees that Andrews cannot properly rely on Title VII preemption to argue for the dismissal of the IIED claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).