BORGELLA et al v. ROBINS & MORTON CORPORATION et al, No. 1:2021cv22789 - Document 28 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 24 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 6/10/2022. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UN ITE D STAT ES DISTR ICT CO UR T SO UTH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLO RID A M IA M I DIV ISIO N CASE NO.1:21-cv-22789-JLK K ATIA BO RGELLA and A NTH ON Y W ILLIA M S, Plaintiffs, RO BIN S & M ORTON CO RPORA TION and RO BIN S & M ORTON G ROU P, Defendants. O RD ER D EN YIN G D EFEN DA N TS'M O TIO N TO DISM ISS THIS M ATTER isbeforetheCourton Defendants'M otion to Dism issPlaintiffsSecond Amended Complaint(the SsMotion'')(DE 24),filed on February l0,2022.The Courthasalso consideredPlaintiffs'Response(DE 25)and Defendants'Reply (DE 26).Thismatterisripefor review . BA C K G R O UN D On July 30,2021,Plaintiffs K atia Borgella and A nthony W illiam s filed their Com plaint allegingRaceDiscrimination(DiscreteAct)inviolationof42U.S.C.j1981,RaceDiscrimination (HostileW orkEnvironment)inviolationofj1981,RetaliationinViolationofj1981,andFamily andM edicalLeaveAct(EûFM LA'')Retaliation in violation of29 CFR j 825.220.SeeDE 1.On September20,2021,Defendantsfiled theirinitialMotion to Dismiss(DE 9)and in response, BORGELLA et al v. ROBINS & MORTON CORPORATION et al Doc. 28 Plaintiffsfiled theirFirstAmendedComplaint(DE 10)asamatterofcourseallegingthe same legalcounts. O n O ctober 15, 2021, D efendants filed their M otion to D ism iss Plaintiffs' A m ended Com plaint. D E 12. This Court granted D efendants' m otion because Plaintiffs' A m ended Dockets.Justia.com Com plaintasserted Ssmultipleclaim sagainstm ultipledefendantswithoutspecifying which ofthe defendants are responsible. .'' and allowed Plaintiffs to iûre-plead, separating counts into individuatlegaltheoriesand specit-ying which countspertain to which Defendant.''DE 22 at3 (eiting Weilandv.Palm BeachC@.Shert's0./ ./7ce,792F.3d 13l3,1323(1lthCir.20l5). Then,onJanuary27,2021,PlaintiffstiledtheirSecondAmendedComplaint(û$SAC'')(DE 23)andseparatedtheirallegationsintoeight(8)counts: (1)Race Discrimination - Disparate Treatment (Plaintiff Borgella against al1 Defendants) (2)RaceDiscrimination - HostileW ork Environment(PlaintiffBorgella against a11Defendants) (3)Retaliation(PlaintiffBorgellaagainsta1lDefendants) (4)FMLA Retaliation(PlaintiffBorgellaagainsta11Defendants) (5)Race Discrimination - Disparate Treatment (Plaintiff W illiams against al1 Defendants) (6)RaceDiscrimination- HostileW ork Environment(PlaintiffW illiamsagainst a11Defendants) (7)Retaliation(PlaintiffW illiamsagainsta11Defendants) (8)FMLA Retaliation(PlaintiffW illiamsagainstallDefendants) Specifically,PlaintiffBorgellaallegesthatwhileworkingforDefendants,shewassubject to racially discriminatory com ments by coworkers,and despite reporting this behavior to her supervisors,no action wastaken.SAC !! 13-31.PlaintiffBorgella furtherallegesthatafter reporting the behavior,she w asassigned lûm ore difficultand strenuousw ork assignm ents''w ithout safety equipm ent. /#. Plaintiff ' W illiams similarly alleges being subjected to racially discrim inatory com m ents and conduct by coworkers and that after num erous com plaints, Defendantsfailedtotakeanycorrectiveaction.ld.!!35-53.Also,heclaimsthatinretaliationfor com plaining,W illiam s was ttrequired to com plete tasks that othernon-African A m ericans were notrequired to com plete''like personalerrands fora forem an and purchasing his own safety gear. ld.!!54-56. On oraround July 15,2020,both Plaintiffs allege experiencing COVlD-19 symptomsat the sam e time while working forDefendants,howeverthey tested negative for COVID-19 and wererequiredtowork.1d.!! 58-61.W hensymptomspersisted,Plaintiffsallegethey wenttothe hospitaland thentested positive.Id.!J!62-63.Defendantstold Plaintiffsto quarantineand after Plaintiffs tested negative Defendantsallegedly term inated both Plaintiffs on Septem ber 16, 2020. 1d.!!69-71. Il. LEG A L STA N DA RD UnderFederalRuie ofProcedure 8(a)(2),Sûgtlo survivea motionto dismiss,acomplaint mustcontain sufticientfactualm atter,accepted astrue,to tstate a claim to reliefthatispiausible onitsface.'''Ashcrojtv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U.S.544,570 (2007)).Tomeetthisstandard,aplaintiffmustplead kûfactualcontentthatallows thecoul'ttodraw thereasonableinferencethatthedefendantisliableforthem isconductalleged.'' lqbal,556 U.S.at678.A complaint must contain Ctm ore than labels and conclusions,and a form ulaicrecitation oftheelem entsofa causeofaction willnotdo.''Twombly,550 U.S.at555. 111. DISC U SSIO N A. Plaintiffs'Second Am ended C om plaintis a Proper Pleading Defendants argue that they still cannot identify which D efendant allegedly caused the wrongfulconductbecause Plaintiffs'SA C stilldoesnotdistinguish orseparate allegationsagainst Defendants.M ot.at4-8.Defendantsfurtherargue thatPlaintiffs'SAC does notrectify the issues addressed in the Court's previous O rder w hich found that Plaintiffs'FirstA m ended Com plaint contained ltm ultiple claim sagainstm ultipledefendantswithoutspecifying w hich ofthe defendants areresponsibleforwhich actsoromissionsg.j''1d.at3-4 (citing DE 22 at3)(citation omittedl; M ot.at4-8.Plaintiffs,in arguing thatthey did com ply w ith the Coun'sO rder,correctly state that ttplaintiffsre-filedtheirComplaint,addingfouradditionalcountsunderseparatelegaltheoriesg.j'' Resp.at3.Each legalcountisnow separated asto each individualPlaintiff.Plaintiffsalso m ake clearnow thateachcountiseûgalgainstallDefendants.''SeeSAC.Plaintiffsfurtherarguethatûteach oftheclaimsassertedinthePlaintiffs'LSAC)canbeproperlyreadasmakingthesameallegation against each defendant individuallya''Resp.at 4' ,See Crowe v. Colem an, 113 F.3d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.1997)(explaining thatûûgwlhen multiple defendants are named in a complaint,the allegations can be and usually are to be read in such a w ay that each defendant is having the allegationmadeabouthim individually.''). iûunder gRule 8(a)1,when a complaintallegesthatmultiple defendants are liable for multipleclaim s,courtsmustdeterm inewhetherthecomplaintgivesfairnoticeto each defendant.'' Petrovic v.Princess Cruise Lines,Ltd.,Case No.12-21588-C1V -ALTONAGA 2012 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 100919,*10(S.D.Fla.July20,2012)(citationomitted).Defendantsaretwo(2)business entitiesthatsharelûRobinsandM orton''in theirnames.PlaintiffsallegethatbothDefendantsshare thesameprincipalplaceofbusinessaddress.SAC !!6-7.ThespecificallegationsintheSAC are read to refer to each Defendant individually.There is no issue that each count is ltagainst a1l Defendants.''Consideringwell-pledfactsandthefactthatonlytwo(2)Defendantsshareasimilar nam e,the Court finds thatthe Defendants have sufficient notice of how to defend against the specific allegations m ade in the SA C. B. JointEm ploym entas A lleged is a Discovery M atter Plaintiffsallegethatûûgalta11timesmaterialto thisaction,DefendantRobins& M orton Group and Defendant Robins & M orton Corporation,were the Plaintiffs'joint and/or sole employer.''SAC ! 8.Defendants argue thatthis failsto adequately allegejointemployment because itis conclusory and insufficientasPlaintiffsdo notstate any additionalfacts.M ot.at9. Plaintiffsrespond thatjointemploymentisafact-intensive determination bestsuited for discovery.Resp.at7.Plaintiffsare con-ectthatthistype ot-determ ination usually requiresa factual inquiry and the factors the Courtshould examine are:ûk(1) interrelation of operations,(2) centralized controloflaborrelations,(3)common management,and (4)common ownership or financialcontrol.''M cKenzie M.D avenport-blarris FuneralH ome,834 F.2d 930, 933 (11th Cir. 1987)).Thissortofdetermination isbetterleftforaflerdiscovery.Atthisstage,withtheCourt taking the allegations in Plaintiffs'SAC as true,tindsthatdiscovery m ustbe conducted as to Defendantsand theirrespective rolesin Plaintiffs'allegations. C. RacialDiscrim ination Claim s DefendantsarguethatPlaintiffshavenotallegedsufficientfactstomakeaprimafacierace discrim ination claim based on disparate treatm ent.M ot.at 10-12.Specifically,Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have notalleged thattttheir em ployer treated sim ilarly situated em ployees outside oftheirprotected class more favorably than they were treated.''/J.at10 (citing Crawford v. Carroll,529F.3d961,970(11th Cir.2008)). ln response,Plaintiffs pointoutthatthey allege kûplaintiffBorgella and Plaintiff W illiam s w ere also left w ithout protective equipm ent on num erous occasions, while other non-African American employeesweregiven protective equipment.''SAC ! 32.Also,Plaintiffsallegethat DefendantsassignedilplaintiffgW illiamsqmoredifticultandstrenuousworkassignments,forcing thePlaintifftoworkwhileotheremployeessleptand/orconsumedalcoholonthejob,humiliating thePlaintiffby takingphotosofhim and editing them toberacially derogatory ....''1d.! 14l. And Defendantsalsoallegedly assigned ûkplaintiffgBorgellajmorediftlcultand strenuouswork assignm ents,requiring thatthe Plaintiffbe segregated and com plete w ork assignm ents w ith only otherAfrican Am ericans,notallowing the Plaintiffto use the same facilities and equipmentas non-AfricanAmericanemployees....''Id.! 82. Defendants argue thatPlaintiffs'allegations do notallege similarly situated individuals becausethey do notdem onstratethatthese otherworkerswere in the samepositionsasPlaintiffs. M ot. at 12. How ever,taken as true, these allegations allege racial discrim ination. Argum ents regarding whether coworkers were actually sim ilarly situated is again, best left until after discovery. D. Racially H ostile W ork E nvironm ent Claim DefendantsarguethatPlaintiffsfailto allege thatçûalleged com m entsorconductwerem ade byemployeesinthecourseand scopeoftheiremploymentwith eitheroftheDefendants.''M ot.at 13.Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' allegations do not rise 'ito the levelof severe or pervasive harassm ent altering the conditions of Plaintiffs' em ploym ent.''1d.A gain,the partof alleged discrim ination isthatPlaintiffsw ere assigned m ore difficultand challenging tasksatwork becauseoftheirrace.SAC !!32,50,88.Assignmentofworkiswithinthescopeofemployment, and this discrimination would alter Plaintiffs' conditions at work. Therefore, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a racially hostile w ork environm ent and m ay proceed to take discovel' y regarding theirtreatm entw orkplace. E. R etaliation C laim s Defendants argue thatto state a claim for retaliation under Section 1981,Plaintiffs m ust allege causation and they failto do so.M otat 14-17.::To establish a claim of retaliation under Title Vl1 or section 1981,a plaintiff m ustprove thathe engaged in statutorily protected activity, he suffered an adverse em ploym ent action,and there w as som e causalrelation betw een the two events.''Goldsmithv.BagbyElevatorCt?.,513F.3d 1261,1277(11thCir.2008)(emphasisadded). Plaintiffsargue thatthey were engaged in statutorily protected aetivity when they m ade reports of discrim ination to the Defendants and their agents.Resp.at 14.Plaintiffs allege that kkplaintiffBorgellawenttoreportgtheuseofracialslurslto oneofDefendants'supervisors''and llplaintiff Borgella also reported the discrim inatory conduct to the D etkndants' Senior Superintendentg.l''SAC !! 22,26.Plaintiffs further allege thatûûgjlustlike PlaintiffBorgella, PlaintiffW illiamsmadenumerouscomplaintsto Defendants'supervisors.''1d.at! 48.Plaintiffs then allege that çtgsjhortly aftermaking the reports ofdiscrimination,the Defendants began assigning Plaintiff Borgella and Plaintiff W illiam s m ore difficult and strenuous work assignments.''/#.at! 32. And ûtgajfterPlaintiffW illiamsmade complaintsaboutthe unlawful discrim ination,Defendantsbegan to assign even m ore burdensome work assignm entsthan they haddonepreviously,asameanstoretaliateagainstPlaintiffW illiams.''1d.atT 50. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged retaliation since they claim that D efendant, their em ployer,w as aw are ofthe protected conductatthe tim e ofthe adverse em ploym entactionsand a tem poralproxim ity between the com plaints and the adverse em ploym entactions.Defendants havenoticeto take discovery and defend againsttheseclaim s. F. FM LA C laim s Defendants argue that iûto survive dism issal, Plaintiffs m ust plausibly plead they w ere entitled to FM LA leave''which m eans Plaintiffs m ustallege a ûtserious health condition''w hich theyhavefailedtodoso.Mot.at17(citingRussellv.N.BrowardS(?$r p.64F.3d l335,1340(11th Cir.2003)).PlaintiffsallegethatwhentheybothcontractedCOVID-19,theyk%werebothextremely sick,experiencing fevers,coughing,shakes,and lossofappetite,among othersymptoms gand blothPlaintiffslostseveralpoundsasaresultoftheirillnesses.''SAC !68.Atthisstage,theCourt w illnot rule on the seriousness of Plaintiffs'sym ptom s,potentially deciding issues before trial. Taking these allegationsastrue,Plaintiffs'have plead sufficientfactsto establish aserioushealth condition underthe FM LA .A ny argum entregarding the seriousnessofCOV ID -19 sym ptom sm ay beraisedatsummaryjudgmentortrial. G .Dam ages Defendantsarguethatcertain damagesclaim ed by Plaintiffsshould be stricken because it isnotallowedunderFM LA,28U.S.C.j2617.Mot.at18-19.Specifically,Defendantsarguethat FM LA doesnotallow recovery foremotionaldistress,punitive,and compensatory damages.1d. (citationsomitted).However,intheirprayerforrelief,PlaintiffsesrequestthisCoul'tenterjudgment againsttheDefendantsfora11dam agessuffered by thePlaintiffs,including interest,attorney'sfees and costs,disbursem entsofaction,and any otherm onetary orequitable reliefallowable by law as aresultoftheDefendants'conductin violationof42 U.S.C.j1981andtheFM LA.''SAC at27 (emphasisadded).BecausePlaintiffsseekonly damageslûallowableby law''thisrequestwillnot bestricken from the SAC.ThisCourtwillonly pennitallowabledam agesto besought. Accordingly,itis O RD ERE D,A DJU D G ED and D EC RE ED that: Defendants'MotiontoDismiss(DE 24)be,andthesamehereby is,DENIED W ITHOUT PREJUDICE to be raised afterdiscovery.IT IS FURTHER O RDERED thatDefendantsshall FILE theirAnswerwithintwenty(20)days. D O NE AN D O R DER ED in Cham bers at the Jam es Law rence King Federal Justice Building and United StatesCourthouse,M iami,Floridathis 10th day ofJune,2022. ES LA R N CE K IN G . A ITED STA TES D ISTRICT J G E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF F RIDA cc: A llcounselofrecord
]]>
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.
