Michael Williams v. Amdocs Inc. et al.

No. 3:25-cv-1551-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2025) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division · December 4, 2025 · No. No. 3:25-cv-1551-G-BN

Summary

This magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation addresses a pro se employment-discrimination action asserting claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Texas intentional infliction of emotional distress law. The recommendation concludes that the Title VII and state tort claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations and should be dismissed with prejudice. It finds that the § 1981 claim does not appear time-barred because the complaint was filed exactly four years after the alleged termination.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Writing for the Court
David L. Horan
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Decision date
December 4, 2025
Docket number
No. 3:25-cv-1551-G-BN
Procedural posture
A pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and Texas law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. After granting in forma pauperis status, the magistrate judge conducted statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended dismissing the Title VII and state-law claims with prejudice as time-barred.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), an in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim, applying the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard. A court may also dismiss sua sponte when the procedure is fair, requiring notice and an opportunity to respond. A claim clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the complaint may be dismissed during § 1915 screening.
Precedential value
Nonprecedential magistrate judge report and recommendation; not a final district-court judgment unless adopted.
Parties
Michael Williams v. Amdocs Inc. et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

statute of limitationstitle viicivil rightsintentional infliction of emotional distresscivil procedure

Practice areas

employment discriminationcivil rightstortscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Title VII claims were clearly barred by the ninety-day period for filing suit after receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue letter.
  2. Whether the prior state-court action tolled the limitations period for the Title VII claims.
  3. Whether equitable tolling could preserve the Title VII claims.
  4. Whether the Texas intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and whether the prior state-court action tolled that period.
  5. Whether the § 1981 claim was barred by the four-year federal statute of limitations.

Holdings

  1. A Title VII civil action must generally be filed within ninety days after receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue letter; Williams's Title VII claims were time-barred based on the facts alleged in the complaint.
  2. A prior Title VII action dismissed for failure to prosecute does not toll the ninety-day period for filing a subsequent Title VII action.
  3. Williams did not plead facts supporting equitable tolling of the Title VII limitations period.
  4. The Texas intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was barred by Texas's two-year statute of limitations, and the prior state-court action did not toll the limitations period.
  5. Williams's § 1981 claim did not appear to be time-barred because he filed suit exactly four years after the alleged June 17, 2021 termination.

Key quotations

And these findings, conclusions, and recommendations provide notice, while the period for filing objections affords an opportunity to respond.
So Williams’s Title VII claims should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.
So Williams’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should also be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.

Factual background

Williams alleged that he received an EEOC right-to-sue letter on February 5, 2020, or possibly February 5, 2022, and that he was fired on June 17, 2021. He filed a related state-court action on December 6, 2022, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 8, 2023. He filed this federal action on June 17, 2025, asserting claims under § 1981, Title VII, and Texas law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Procedural history

Williams alleged that he received an EEOC right-to-sue letter, previously filed a related state-court action that was dismissed for want of prosecution, and then filed this federal action on June 17, 2025. The district court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and referred the case to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for pretrial management and a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the Title VII and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims with prejudice, while concluding that the § 1981 claim did not appear time-barred.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…