Murphy v. Southwest Tennessee Community College, No. 2:2008cv02760 - Document 25 (W.D. Tenn. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., on February 17, 2010. (Mays, Samuel)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Murphy v. Southwest Tennessee Community College Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TAMI MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST TENNESSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant. Case No. 08-2760 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Before the Court is Defendant Southwest Tennessee Community College’s (“STCC”) April 6, 2008, Motion to Dismiss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). allegations Complaint Defendant argues that the majority of the contained alleging within Plaintiff employment Tami Murphy’s Amended discrimination occurred outside the three hundred-day statute of limitations period. U.S.C. § See Fed. 2000e-5(e)(1). Defendant further alleges See 42 that the allegations that are within the limitations period fail to state a claim for relief. (Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss at 1.) (“Def’s. Memo”) filed her suit within the applicable Because Plaintiff statute of limitations period and Plaintiff has met her burden at this early stage, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss. Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND Murphy currently serves as a tenured associate professor in developmental studies at STCC, where she has worked since 1989. (Amended Compl. 10.)1 ¶ Murphy developmental mathematics at STCC. filed her first charge of teaches five (Id. ¶ 11.) discrimination sections of In 2003, Murphy with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that STCC had discriminated gender. against her on the basis of her race and The EEOC investigated Murphy’s charges and issued a “Right to Sue Notice” in September 2003. suit against STCC. Murphy did not file (Id. ¶ 12.) Murphy alleges that, following the EEOC’s issuance of the Right to Sue Notice, officials and fellow employees at STCC began to “harass[], ridicule[], and retaliate[]” against because she had filed the initial discrimination charge. 13.) her (Id. ¶ Specifically, Murphy asserts that in March 2004, STCC’s Dean of Business and Career Technology, Ted Along, announced that Murphy was “unqualified to teach Developmental Math” in a seminar attended by STCC faculty, staff, and students. 13a.) (Id. ¶ Murphy also alleges that her efforts to have proposed distance procedural learning hurdles. courses A male approved ran departmental 1 into significant colleague had his All citations to the Complaint are to the “Corrected Amended Complaint” filed on March 27, 2009. (See Dkt. No. 12.) 2 courses approved promptly although he had not received required training and completed the peer-review process. 13c.) (Id. ¶ By contrast, STCC required Murphy to attend training sessions and have her course materials peer-reviewed. Administrators’ refusal to approve her proposed (Id.) asserts allow that transfer in from mathematics August the 2007 developmental department, preventing August 17, 2007. transfers (Id.) declined studies her to the Murphy to department from (Id. ¶ 13d.) better career opportunities. professors STCC having Murphy her to access to the to STCC granted two mathematics also (Id.) distance learning courses caused her to receive less pay. male the alleges department that on various college officials have been rude to her and have written her up on “frivolous complaints.” (Id. ¶ 13e.) After several STCC offices flooded in April 2005, Murphy’s office became “full of mold.” Although STCC cleaned other offices, Murphy alleges that it delayed cleaning her office until May 2007. (Id. ¶ 13h.) As further evidence of the hostile work environment she faced at STCC, Murphy asserts that the chair of her department, Dr. Cleaves2, has screamed at her in meetings and ridiculed her credentials to teach. (Id. ¶ 14.) Murphy claims that, in a meeting with Dr. Cleaves after the first EEOC charge, Cleaves asked her, “So what did that get you? 2 Where are they now? . . . The Amended Complaint does not reveal Dr. Cleaves’ given name. 3 I guess you will just have to keep going outside the school for some more help.” (Id. ¶ 15a.) Other administrators allegedly made similar comments. At the Fall 2008 convocation, STCC Director of Human Resources Paul Thomas addressed the faculty and announced that “someone” would soon sue STCC and that the costs of defending STCC from the suit could cause others to “lose their jobs.” (Id. ¶ 16.) STCC’s President, Dr. Nate Essex, addressed the same convocation and “ranted and raved” about employees’ going around the college’s (Id. ¶ 17.) internal complaint procedures. Murphy, however, asserts that she had tried to go through internal procedures and found Thomas and Cleaves unresponsive. Cleaves warned Murphy never to “go outside the school” with her allegations. (Id. ¶ 18.) Murphy filed suit on November 3, 2008, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), alleging that STCC had created a hostile work environment gender and had retaliated against her. – e-3. on the basis of her See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 She seeks a judgment declaring that STCC violated Title VII, compensatory damages of $300,000 plus all back pay and benefits due Compl. at 12.) her, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Amended STCC has filed its Motion to Dismiss to contest the sufficiency of Murphy’s Amended Complaint. 4 II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims under the general federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addressing a motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff allegations as true. and accept all well-pled factual League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff can support a claim “by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, This standard requires more than bare assertions of legal conclusions. C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand Cir. 2001). “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (2007) (per curiam). Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.) Id. Nonetheless, a complaint must contain sufficient facts “to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible Ashcroft v. on its Iqbal, face’” 129 S. to Ct. 5 survive 1937, a motion 1949 to dismiss. (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “This plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” plaintiff with no facts Id. at 1949 (citation omitted). and “armed with nothing more conclusions” cannot “unlock the doors of discovery.” A than Id. at 1950. III. ANALYSIS A. Murphy Filed Her Complaint Within the Limitations Period STCC argues in its Motion that most of Murphy’s allegations fall outside the statute of limitations period and that this Court may not consider them as evidence of discrimination or retaliation. (Def.’s Mot. at 1-4.) Where the complainant is from a state, such as Tennessee, that has an agency empowered to grant relief for charges of discrimination, a party has three hundred days from the date of notice of the alleged unlawful employment practice to file U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). period is forever barred. a complaint with the EEOC. 42 A claim not filed within this time See AMTRAK v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002). 6 Here, it is undisputed that Murphy filed complaint with the EEOC on September 17, 2007. her second Thus, November 21, 2006, marks the outer limit of the three-hundred-day period. (Def.’s Memo at 2; Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition at 2.) STCC notes that many of the allegations contained in Murphy’s Amended Complaint occurred years before November 21, 2006. (See, e.g., Amended Compl. ¶¶ 13a-c (events took place in 2004), 13f (2005).) If Murphy’s Amended Complaint rested on allegations of individual acts of discrimination, these claims would be barred. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Morgan, 536 U.S. at 112 (noting that each discrete act must have occurred within the three-hundred-day period). Murphy, however, asserts a hostile work environment claim based on theories of Addressing hostile explained, “Provided gender discrimination environment that an claims, act the and retaliation. Supreme contributing Court to the has claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered purposes of determining liability.” (emphasis added). by a court for the Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117 All Murphy must demonstrate to have all of the acts alleged in her Amended Complaint considered is that one act forming part of her claim occurred within the three-hundredday period before she filed her EEOC complaint. admits that Murphy has alleged 7 several events Id. that STCC occurred after November 21, 2006, as part of her Amended Complaint. Def.’s Memo at 2 (citing Amended Compl. ¶¶ 13d, g, h).) (See Because Murphy’s Amended Complaint alleges events that occurred within the limitations period, the Court may consider all of the events Murphy alleges. DENIES Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as The Court, therefore, it relates to the statute of limitations. B. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint States a Cause of Action STCC’s second argument is that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action for a hostile work environment based on gender or for retaliation. Memo at 2-5.) (Def.’s Defendant bases its argument on the premise that the Court cannot properly consider several of Murphy’s factual allegations because they fall outside the limitations period – an argument the Court has rejected. (See id. at 2.) Examining all of the facts alleged and taking them as true, League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 500 F.3d at 527, the Court finds that Murphy has stated a plausible claim for relief. 550 U.S. at 570. See Twombly, Whether the claim can survive the totality of the circumstances test is a decision best left for a motion for summary judgment. See generally Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (listing some of the elements courts may consider). 8 IV. CONCLUSION The Court finds that Plaintiff filed suit within the time period allowed by the statute of limitations and that she has pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The Court, therefore, DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. So ordered this 17th day of February, 2010. s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
