Edwards v. Murphy-Brown, L.L.C., No. 2:2010cv00165 - Document 35 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying defendant's motion to dismiss. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 7/13/11 and filed on 7/14/11. (jcow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA JUL 1 4 2011 Norfolk Division BRIDGETT EDWARDS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:10cvl65 v. MURPHY-BROWN, L.L.C., Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before L.L.C.'s ("Murphy-Brown") Amended Complaint ("Plaintiff"), Civil Procedure. to Dismiss For 1 The to by Defendant Dismiss 12(b)(6) following of Murphy-Brown Count Plaintiff Rule the to on II of Bridgett Edwards the Federal reasons, the Rules Defendant's of Motion is DENIED. I. A Court Motion filed pursuant the more FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 complete recitation of the facts was set forth in facts recited here are drawn from the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and are motion currently assumed before true the considered factual findings consideration of the pending Chevrolet, Ltd. (4th 2008) Cir. dismiss, construes plaintiff a v. court these for the Court. for any motion to Consumeraffairs.com, ("[I]n evaluating accepts facts in weighing the in all the legal purpose of deciding They are not to a purpose dismiss. Inc., Rule well-pled light 591 other See F.3d 12(b)(6) facts most sufficiency of than Nemet 250, motion as favorable the be 255 to true and to the the complaint."). this Court's Brown, 8 earlier L.L.C., (E.D. Va. No. Jan. Plaintiff sexually 4, behavior to under 13. was at "male January 24, her co-worker, at work at because of leaving room Lewis the they Leonardo "Surprised 5 by 19. Tennessee door against opening, this man had been different names Compl. 1 19. no 11 co- 11-13. the six offending Flournoy, Am. who Compl. f disciplinary action Id. discrimination On this day, the Salvador the occurred Plaintiff on and who often shower altered their routine "street opened "encountered kneeling Lee ("Tennessee"), into migrant ("Epps"). temperature. changed As she the Am. Honor the work day, outdoor merely Talon, 2 Allegedly, Brown under Rodriguez. Compl. cold Id. exit, at *1- approximately reported Epps alleged Felicia Tennessee work. to Am. of the conclusion of of showering, event 2008. Murphy- experiencing Compl. over Plaintiff supervisor, began Mexican the Amended Complaint, crowning v. LEXIS 4088, Am. incidents taken in response to the reports. The she Murphy-Brown. immediate to Edwards Dist. 2002, from event, direction According in several each her the that, working After Order. 2011 U.S. behavior experienced years. and 2011). alleges while Plaintiff was 2:10cvl65, offensive workers" Opinion Id. clothes" door of of prior to the shower Hernandez,2 a.k.a shower Hernandez, Instead door." a.k.a. Talon, Id. lost hired several times at Murphysuch as Leonardo "Talon" or his balance stumbling According to "guiltily" ran led examination to an the into Amended from drilled peep-holes. The next door 21. Ms. asked done had Complaint she could Flournoy did not 55 the by the the Hernandez discovery Tennessee reported Flournoy. of Am. door patched. However, when to do that Ms. patching the about the Flournoy door. three About that and she the Compl. a could no fear 9[ Id. Epps Id. However, and Ms. women later, Tennessee longer others take At to and 1 the she 22. had Ms. disciplinary see instead Williams' Mary her of seeing assistant, drilling the Am. Ms. the the Williams, Ms. Brooks. that themselves, Compl. Flournoy incident showered. to go the women waited alleges holes she decided Williams, Ms. to caused by while Plaintiff Beth employees. complained stress Human Resources, the Amended Complaint of the watching Tennessee minutes meeting, the of 23. Resources. twenty week Mexican" take SI Plaintiff incident, Compl. or shower Compl. indicated Am. investigation "male and there the Ms. an up 20. and intended the jumped Id. 23. 22, of room." Hernandez and supervisor, conduct any 5 shower Discovering door Compl. states all against Id. Plaintiff Defendant action of their Flournoy what Amended to women's Complaint, room. Am. day, incident the the to Human fifteen department they Id. Epps, Am. were head. met During while maintained to by their accusing a joking demeanor. would Id. not Epps protect also them Mexican migrant workers this was a problem, Plaintiff the work Epps to Epps. Plaintiff Plaintiff to rather the were Am. Further, the Epps' Defendant than Compl. Amended who might a designed ploy Compl. f 36. direct response Thus, The to help April in this to Dismiss 12, matter, the the the that to have 2010, alleging Complaint two on her 7, continue. Am. to an was implicit and her Compl. anyone 35. along with job. conduct her co- the enforced," to quit her women 5 transfer, belittling the transfer rights with from Am. was in complaints. demeanor attempted to and go Id. filed counts. July to him" that reporting. this Epps' Epps' Plaintiff and if place Am. that around fact "male a decision access contends the he response, 6, Plaintiff that "deny In Farm situation states attributes above him in the chain of On that stemming 25. would Epps' [Plaintiff] "going I nearby encourage Plaintiff her decision of fear harassment. to Plaintiff Plaintiff reassignment for effort to that remedy Complaint concerted to Mexican men" game" and harassment alleges "migrant "fair women behavior humiliation the worker Id. her believed 23. the Id. Plaintiff message was described reassign 5 to at any farm under his management" to Compl. with clear harassing Plaintiff where the from it they could quit. environment decided made her original Defendant 2010. This filed Court Complaint a Motion issued an Opinion and Order and granting the Nevertheless, amend Count denying Defendant's motion to the Court, II of the dismiss sua motion Count sponte, Complaint, to II dismiss of the provide an an 2011. Amended Complaint Defendant's February 7, pursuant 2011 to expanding Motion and Rule is to Dismiss currently 12 (b) (6) Count of II Count pending the on for January II to Plaintiff 20, followed before Federal leave opportunity her to fully plead a prima facie case of retaliation. filed I Complaint. granted Plaintiff to Count on this court of Civil Rules Procedure. II. Federal defendant state P. a Rule STANDARD OP REVIEW3 of Civil claim upon which A motion should be granted if relief to Corp. v. Twombly, claim be plausible the pleading a "sheer unlawfully." dismiss for granted." permits failure U.S. not impose Id. at v. 544, 556. possibility Ashcroft not a 570 However, R. Civ. a claim allege "enough facts that Iqbal, a 129 (2007). it Ct. face." Bell Requiring requirement does defendant S. "failure to state to probability a Fed. that is plausible on its 550 does stage. can be the complaint does to state a claim to relief than 12(b)(6) to seek dismissal based on the plaintiff's 12 (b) (6). Atl. Procedure 1937, ask at for more has 1949 a acted (2009). 3 The following description of the appropriate standard of review is taken directly from this Court's original Opinion and Order. Edwards, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4088, at *13-16. "A claim factual has facial content inference that that alleged." plausibility allows "does 12(b)(6) not a claim, N.C. a v. and consistent v. with plaintiff draw are facts" and the Ltd. the to conjunction 8(a)(2) by not Civ. P. what the with requires 8(a)(2), . . Bell Gibson, 355 the pleads reasonable . the as pursuant only "a to claim is and 41, 47 that F.3d facts short is U.S. (1957)). be E. 175, in Mkts. (4th is drawn the proved, Shore 180 12 (b) (6) Civil Cir. assumed, from the inferences, at plain to Fair 8(a)(2). statement relief, " fair upon which 555 must be read Procedure defendant the grounds 550 of Id. and the merits alleged alleged entitled "give and Accordingly, unwarranted to Rule of the can conclusions true Rule the pleader Corp., the complaint 1992). fact 213 misconduct Republican Party of allegations." "legal Federal a facts or arguments." as U.S. of of all any P'ship, so Atl. of of the facts, (4th Cir. truth accept dismiss claim showing that 952 truth bound "need A motion Rule for sufficiency complaint's Assocs. not the unreasonable conclusions, in liable surrounding existence the Although courts the F.2d 943, "assume the J.D. 2000). contests 980 should complaint tests is to the applicability of defenses." Martin, court Inc. motion resolve or defendant court the Id. A the the when is the Fed. R. notice of it rests (quoting notice of . . Conley v. provided by setting its forth enough face" level and on 555 "raise the complaint are true (internal complaint's factual Williams, . survive a recovery is very v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. a claim, wrongs alleged." appears to to a relief 840 remote 232, to It any the F.2d 236 "must 1149, fact) Id. a "plausible the . . at . 556 (1989)). Id. does (quoting if at not of a Neitzke complaint it Id. the disbelief A "even in . " 12(b)(6) judge's on speculative allegations unlikely.'" appears (quoting may xthat Scheuer (1974)). "must is filed with be not that "especially dismiss the legal facts in dismiss and above the on 327 to to be "Rule based dismiss certainty by doubtful 319, Court under suggested Serv., the all omitted). motion motion rights relief allegations." U.S. a Where if dismissals 490 to that citations . the complaint right {even . therefore a for assumption countenance v. facts plaintiff theory (4th would not might Harrison Cir. 1988) to a solicitous' complaint which alleged.'" 1152 the respect civil of 'unless be U.S. (internal it entitled plausibly v. the be Postal citation omitted). III. A. Defendant Complaint Court's was DISCUSSION Timeliness of the Amended Complaint argues not previous in timely Opinion its Motion filed and and Order to Dismiss should be in this that the dismissed. case, the Amended In the Court, sua sponte, granted «[p]laintiff fifteen (15) days of Edwards, 2011 U.S. Dist. Order was However, stamped ("CM/ECF") until words 5, on 4, 2011: 5, of 4088, on January office did not the amend this LEXIS Case at [Count Opinion *69. 4, The See docket notation ECF Docket Order." Id. at "(Entered: on which the date of entry 1/5/2011)." into of Case the Opinion the two and CM/ECF dates and No. not Due Order to contends In with the Rule 6 of computation of deadlines Then, Filing fact, difference stamped filed Defendant that given the time in excluded every holidays.4 Federal is R. of complying numbers from day Fed. for Rules of days, the period. counted Civ. P. Civil with Plaintiff's court the Fed. forward 6(a)(l)(B). day R. January in the and the on the relies Procedure Amended 2011. governs deadlines. of Civ. the P. including the following entered until the was system, 21. Complaint was not timely when it was filed on January 20, is *1. the Opinion and Order reflects such Opinion and Order was date event within Opinion and 2011." enter II] and Management/Electronic 2011. 2011 that earlier to system and give email notice to counsel of the filing January January entry "filed the Clerk's electronically the leave the For triggering 6(a)(l)(A). weekends and Therefore, depending on 4 If the period ends on a holiday or weekend, extended until the next business day. Fed. 6(a)(l)(C). This provision is not applicable the time is R. Civ. P. because the fifteen day period ended on a normal weekday. 8 whether the triggering event was the filing on January 4, or the entry onto CM/ECF on January 5, have been either January 20, The provide these Local Rules Local Rules E.D. Rules as silent Va. Electronic accordance 2011 or Thursday, the Eastern Case Filing District Policies of Virginia and Procedures the Loc. technicalities Civil this Rule issue, of 1(A). the electronic Because Court will the look case Local to the states the following: transmission of a document to ECF in these procedures, together with the with transmission the to on The Manual from 19, "governs if there is a conflict between it and filing." Manual. for the Electronic ("Manual") are January the deadline would 2011. that manual Wednesday, 2011, 2011 of Court filed document, a Notice with of Electronic a hyperlink constitutes to the filing of Filing (NEF) electronically the document for all purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Local Rules EDVA of this Electronic Chapter Four, Court. Case pg. Filing 30 Policies (2010), and available Procedures at Manual, http://www.vaed. uscourts.gov/ecf/E-FilingPoliciesandProcedures-new.htm (emphasis added). when Furthermore, w[t]he time of process of filing the document is begun, Electronic Filing] is generated." These provisions apply court documents, and in the because Id. context the filing is not but when the at of phrase Chapter the [Notice of Four, pg. parties filing "within fifteen 31. their (15) days of the entry of this Opinion and Order" whether "entry" means stamping "filed" does not specify on the Opinion and Order or entering it electronically on CM/ECF with the resulting NEF transmission, and calculate there. other No. the Court will apply the rule stated in the Manual This the 5713 (S.D.N.Y. June the and triggering the more 3, (PKC), 2011) time date Complaint was 2011 stated on U.S. a the January provided Dist. document NEF) . 5, v. Apple LEXIS is 60878, deemed Therefore, 2011, Inc., *3 filed since Plaintiff's on the Amended timely. B. Retaliation In its Motion to Dismiss Count II of Defendant manner See Emblaze Ltd. (noting was expansive consistent with the position taken by district courts. Civ. date in approach is federal 10 time contends Complaint also that Plaintiff's the Amended Complaint, allegations in the Amended "do not cure the insufficiency the Court found in Count Two of the initial Complaint" and do not state a claim for retaliation VII granted. 3. To in Mem. violation Supp. address of Title Def.'s Mot. this on which to Dismiss contention, relief can Count Two Am. the Court be Compl. examines the requirements of a Title VII retaliation claim. Title VII of shall be an discriminate the Civil unlawful against Rights Act employment any of his 10 of 1964 practice employees states for . . an . that "[i]t employer because he to has opposed this any practice subchapter, assisted, or proceeding, an because participated or 2000e-3(a). or made hearing This he in has any under provision unlawful employment made a manner this charge, in an it by testified, investigation, subchapter." makes practice 42 unlawful to U.S.C. § retaliate against an employee for asserting her rights under Title VII. In order to succeed in a retaliation claim under Title VII, an employee must she engaged adversely in establish a prima a against protected her; and facie case activity; (3) there (2) was showing that the a employer causal " (1) acted connection between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action." Ziskie v. Holland Mineta, v. 2007)). Wash. 547 Homes, Defendant second requirement.5 Am. Compl. 5-6. F.3d argues Mem. 220, Inc., that Supp. 229 487 (4th F.3d Plaintiff's Def.'s Mot. Cir. 208, 2008) 218 claim (citing (4th fails Cir. on the to Dismiss Count Two The Court addresses these requirements below. 5 The Court's January 4, 2011 Opinion and Order found that Plaintiff's original Complaint failed to plead an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation. Edwards, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4088, at *54. Because of that finding, the Court indicated it need "not address Defendant's second contention that Plaintiff did not engage in a 'protected employment activity.'" Id. (internal citations omitted) . For that reason, the Court will in this footnote briefly address the "protected employment activity" contention. The first requirement for a retaliation claim is that an employee has engaged in an activity protected by Title VII. Ziskie, 574 F.3d at 229. Specifically, a reporting employee "must have an objectively reasonable belief 11 that a violation is In Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Court's VII retaliation light of Memorandum the previous Amended in Opposition Complaint, Opinion and unclear argument, this was the Court with or Defendant's Plaintiff Order, claims to respect legally finds it argues to that Title erroneous. necessary to In briefly review the recent case law on such retaliation claims. A plead plaintiff facts actually that and 458 F.3d "maintaining 332, egregious hostile to belief alter environment culminated finding taking allegations Def.'s these motion Reply F.3d 341. at holding in allegations LEXIS could have at facts Mot. Res. Circumstances Title VII of include Id. at is 339. As "neither the satisfy the 12 the 2007 had a VII that women's a Compl. with Order that were a 2011 VII, be the to 458 Court's Plaintiff's enough Dist. reasonable person at Farm protected Plaintiff element Jordan, U.S. conditions would a 11-12, person plausible Edwards, because lead violated," reasonable consistent picture- would been occurring." and first case. the Original lead work Title of discovery VII environment complaints of doorway Title While Defendant argued in Dismiss is were events the result, that any harassing dismiss. a 8 create of actually work Farm or of plausibly to provision to to at employment pinhole Opinion hostile that sufficient by employee protection Title conclusion *68. antiretaliation the the that 2008 violation motion of in conclude could concluded and that dismiss earlier a a to taken Alternative circumstances in the door. Supp. This of 4088, unlawful "a its withstand v. environment." series the to Mem. that to to circumstances conclude by required action 2006) . terms Hernandez nor person that the a bathroom and three holes reasonable work such alleges original Cir. is that Jordan protected hostile applied. Id. Plaintiff its adverse circumstances believes." (4th reasonable in on an claim on the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, assess whether the situation warranted an enough work show are ... Therefore, based the Court must retaliation 341 that a objectively based reasonably discrimination a plausibly occurring observes Corp., alleging of has 8 were by the alleged the prima facie defendant in response to her asserting rights protected by Title VII. Burlington In U.S. 53 (2006), regarding had the taken change in an proper in claim. The adverse the likely Id. had purposes against charge the and concluded a broader antidiscrimination Supreme Court antiretaliation White, 548 of noted be a Title some employment" the employer or or benefits of citations Court, other actions employer's worker adverse "resulft] and Supreme VII circuits "materially quotations the a that conditions, to an "would from making Id. or (internal omitted). comparison between antiretaliation array of of employer Title concluded extends retaliatory the language antidiscrimination antiretaliation the provision employment-related v. whether discrimination." provision also of reasonable title's that action terms, substantive the Co. context Court that of careful of the according required Ry. faced with a circuit split (internal a a VII Court 60 and citations After in the dissuaded a quotations Title only have Fe determining conditions on at Whereas, supporting for Supreme and effect employment." omitted). Santa employment terms adverse circuits test action the & the Supreme Court was adverse retaliation required Northern acts 13 that VII. the provision conduct "[t]he beyond provision section, Id. and at of Supreme protects than the 67-68. The scope of the workplace-related and harm." Id. at 67. As or a result, of the Supreme Court held the antiretaliation discriminatory employment." of Title showing in this VII's at to an from employee at 68 Edwards, (internal 2011 U.S. spoke in terms of conduct that violation, and limited to affect the terms and conditions of the adverse took provision in a supporting quotations a at "material adversity" merely employer trivial, conduct action, by in "which *65. discrimination." omitted); The accord Supreme Court to differentiate employer and that implicated Title VII. satisfied activity, of citations 4088, be component dissuaded a reasonable charge and action adverse" protect might have LEXIS can "materially engaging Dist. was from therefore not it well or action component Instead, 64. employer making adverse "is antiretaliation the the provision that context means worker Id. Id. that response actions that thus was of not a Title greater Burlington Ne., 548 VII gravity, U.S. at 68. In case, the context the Supreme reassignment "materially is the has stated automatically depend[ing] upon allegations, that, as in this although a job may be of the actionable, the it circumstances and should be judged from the perspective of a person in circumstances." citations job reassignment Court not adverse particular case, reasonable of omitted). the plaintiff's Id. While at changes 14 to considering all (internal 71 position, quotations and the terms, conditions, or benefits of the plaintiff's considered when evaluating such changes not of retaliation a provision, is the actions employment."); see 341, Cir. claim (4th involving a with malicious a motion left to the v. (noting the conditions of case that of employee In six 478 F.3d for Inc., the of 650 n.2 retaliation and employer to survive was (4th had filed); Cir. 2007) Burlington Northern second element all 334, plaintiff lawsuit beyond F.3d past the in Therefore, to an adverse action 640, component 515 him by his that of limited plaintiff's fact lack conditions and standard the harmful not decision Circuit's was that before Court's employment Detecon, be antiretaliation is terms to the action (n[T]he the enough of Inc., Fourth 64 filed against the factors adverse provision, v. months Supreme action at affect despite retaliation). an the {holding intent was the id. are circumstances," on Darveau lawsuit Equant broadened that 2008) dismiss, that See also employment Lettieri the substantive discriminatory 343 "all dispositive claim. unlike employment the of terms a prima circumstances materially and facie indicating adverse to the should be considered. the Defendant present altered case, the Plaintiff terms, employment by reassigning her Farm If there no benefits, 6. Plaintiff's transfer were besides to a mere 15 or similar additional a does not conditions position allegations lateral claim at that of her nearby concerning reassignment, such allegations alone would not likely rise to the level of material adversity. 729-30 See Lucero v. (7th judgment, grade Cir. that without Nettle Creek Sen. (holding, 2009) Corp., appeal reassignment a change not materially adverse to in in teach an 7th grade compensation such that or 566 F.3d 720, from summary instead of school 12th location was it would dissuade a reasonable person from making a claim of discrimination even though the new position was "less No. l:09cv586, 19, 2009) courts 2009 (noting, have prestigious"); U.S. Dist. LEXIS also 109953, context, issue they have employment Sch. Bd., No. l:09cv341, 2009 (E.D. Va. July 22, (dismissing on a transfer and to school stating "[a] level Rivera v. U.S. a that Ms. describes with However, greater even did not Nov. "[w]hen in after constitute 63647, *20-21 claim based Dumfries detrimental it the as opposed effect not . . the transfer required otherwise reduced her in the Amended Complaint, detail surrounding her reassignment to Farm 6. 16 transfer LEXIS to Rivera does not allege that future job opportunities."). Va. that held, Geren, Rivera preferred does take a reduction in pay or that Plaintiff (E.D. retaliation transfer v. Prince William Cnty. Dist. the transfer had a significant because Ms. her to reassignment action."); 2009) and grade such similarly an adverse . *20 involuntary Northern, mean that that of Burlington a Sturdivant in the summary judgment context, addressed the retaliation see the circumstances Plaintiff demeanor as reassign the ascribes he refused to to Plaintiff to Epps aid a complaints and to the flippant women, farm where Plaintiff also describes Epps' deter a deciding keep the sexual Plaintiff implies the reassignment was were alleged "fair Moreover, Human harassment at the harassers game" that and Plaintiff instead to existed. calculated power play designed to management to belittling discrimination reaching that and Resources. the that alleges that an implicit message and harassment the from Additionally, Plaintiff the claims her co-worker could reassignment continue. was a ploy designed to get Plaintiff to quit her job. While such allegations must be Plaintiff to ultimately prevail on this dismiss stage, proven materially person has her adverse conduct from raising a alleged facts Amended issue, Complaint that claim of would in at to state dissuade a a alleges reasonable Thus, prima for the motion to plausibly discrimination. sufficient order facie Plaintiff case of retaliation upon which relief could be granted. IV. For the Plaintiff 2011, to pled properly within the reasons the that forth above, filed the Amended fifteen day window. retaliation facts set CONCLUSION claim, allege a the Court prima 17 facie the Court Complaint concludes on Furthermore, holds case that of January with that 20, regard Plaintiff retaliation has such that the claim may be pursued further. Motion to Dismiss Therefore, Defendant's is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Opinion and Order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Mark S. Davis UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Norfolk, Virginia July 13 . 2011 18
]]>
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.
