Julie St. John
Texas Employment Lawyer Julie St. John

After a lawsuit is filed and before it makes it to a jury, there are oftentimes various procedural hurdles it needs to clear. Two of the most common in employment law cases are motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Motions to dismiss typically come early on and are far more likely if your (former) employer/the defendant is a government entity. Motions for summary judgment typically come much later, after discovery has closed. 

This blog outlines the standards for each type of motion under federal law. But if you have been pursing your case pro se (i.e. representing yourself) and the other side files either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, you should consider consulting with an employment lawyer right away.  

Motion to Dismiss

To defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “the plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Courts must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 n.8 (5th Cir. 2000)). 

“The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim. Thus, the court should not dismiss the claim unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts or any possible theory that he could prove consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate only where the record contains no genuine dispute as to any material fact, so that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).  The moving party bears the initial burden of showing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Only if the moving party meets its burden is the nonmoving party required to respond to show a genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). A genuine dispute of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).  

In making its decision, “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); see also Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014). “[C]ourts may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seeking summary judgment.” Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at 1866. As long as “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” such that factual disputes remain, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Julie St. John Julie St. John

We asked Julie L. St. John, an experienced Trial Attorney in the Houston office of Rob Wiley, P.C., to impart her candid answers to a range of questions. After reading, you will be more more informed on the well-respected reputation that Ms.

We asked Julie L. St. John, an experienced Trial Attorney in the Houston office of Rob Wiley, P.C., to impart her candid answers to a range of questions. After reading, you will be more more informed on the well-respected reputation that Ms. St. John carries.

1. Why did you start practicing labor and employment law?

Because I care about the rights of employees and believe all workers should be treated fairly. 

2. If you could write a new law, what would it do?

Guarantee a living wage for all workers.

 3. Besides Rob Wiley, P.C., what is the most interesting job that you have had?

I worked as the beer cart girl at a golf course in college. 

4. What’s the best part of living in Houston?

Houston is clearly the best city in Texas, way better than Austin or Dallas. The people are wonderful, and the food is delicious. The only downside is the traffic, which is why I refuse to go outside of the loop (with a key exception for Ikea).

 5. If you were not practicing labor and employment law what would you be?

I would start a gardening/landscaping company with animals that do the work. The goats would eat the weeds, the pigs would till the ground, and the chickens would keep the bugs away.

6. Why did you decide to become a lawyer?

To have another tool to use to fight for things I believe in. I’ve always wanted to change the world.

7. What do you do when you’re not practicing law?

Travel, watch Ohio State football, and work to make my cat instafamous.

8. What’s your favorite legal movie

The Pelican Brief because it features Tulane Law!

9. Have you ever learned something from one of your clients?

I learn something from almost all of my clients. Most importantly, courage.

10. Who do you most admire as a lawyer?

Kalandra Wheeler

Julie L. St. John is a Trial Attorney in the Houston office of Rob Wiley, P.C. She graduated from Ohio State University with her bachelor’s degree in 2007. Ms. St. John then graduated from Tulane University School of Law in 2017.