Weldon v. Warren County Children Services et al, No. 1:2012cv00279 - Document 29 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss. Remaining claims shall proceed as previously scheduled by the Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 11/14/12. (do1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Weldon v. Warren County Children Services et al Doc. 29 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON BRACI E T . WELDON , Pla int iff v. Ca se N o. 1 :1 2 -c v-2 7 9 -H J W WARREN COU N T Y CH I LDREN SERV I CES, e t a l, De fe nda nt s ORDER T his m a t t e r is be fore t he Court upon t he de fe nda nt ’s “M ot ion t o Dism iss” (doc . no. 1 1 ), w hic h pla int iff oppose s. H a ving fully c onside re d t he re c ord, inc luding t he ple a dings, t he pa rt ie s’ brie fs, a nd t he ora l a rgum e nt s he a rd in c onjunc t ion w it h t he pre t ria l c onfe re nc e , t he Court w ill gra nt t he m ot ion for t he follow ing re a sons: I . Ba c k ground Pla int iff Bra c ie T . We ldon w a s hire d by t he Wa rre n Count y Childre n Se rvic e s t o w ork a s a c a se m a na ge r be ginning Fe brua ry 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 . She did not m a k e it t hrough he r proba t iona ry pe riod a nd w a s t e rm ina t e d le ss t ha n six m ont hs la t e r on Se pt e m be r 2 7 , 2 0 1 1 for “fa iling 1 Dockets.Justia.com t o m e e t t he st a nda rds of t he Prot e c t ive Se rvic e s Ca se w ork e r posit ion” (doc . no. 2 6 a t 2 2 ). She indic a t e s he r e m ploye r found he r “t o be ine ffe c t ive in he r w ork posit ion t hrough la c k of produc t ion” but c la im s he r la c k of produc t ion w a s due t o “t he oppre ssive a t t it ude s a nd c onduc t t ow a rd [he r]” (I d. a t 9 , ¶ 2 5 ). She c om pla ins t ha t a fe m a le supe rvisor c rit ic ize d he r a t t ire “w hile ot he r e m ploye e s a re pe rm it t e d t o w e a r c lot hing t ha t ha s be e n c ha ra c t e rize d a s ina ppropria t e w he n w orn by pla int iff” (I d. a t 7 , ¶ 1 8 ). Pla int iff c onc lude s t ha t she w a s subje c t e d t o “disc rim ina t ory t re a t m e nt . . . be c a use of he r se x a nd ra c e ” (I d. a t 3 , ¶ 1 ). On Oc t obe r 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 , pla int iff file d a c ha rge of disc rim ina t ion w it h t he Equa l Em ploym e nt Opport unit y Com m ission (“EEOC”), a lle ging ra c e a nd se x disc rim ina t ion (doc . no. 1 7 -1 a t 2 0 ). On J a nua ry 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 , t he EEOC m a ile d a “Dism issa l a nd N ot ic e of Suit Right s” le t t e r, a dvising pla int iff t ha t if she w ishe d t o file a c la im in fe de ra l c ourt , she ha d 9 0 da ys t o do so. Se e 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (f)(1 ). On April 5 , 2 0 1 2 , t he pla int iff t im e ly file d a six -c ount fe de ra l c om pla int , a lle ging ra c e disc rim ina t ion a nd re t a lia t ion unde r T it le V I I , 2 a nd four st a t e c la im s for sla nde r pe r se , sla nde r pe r quod, w rongful disc ha rge , a nd ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss (doc . no. 1 ). She sue d he r form e r e m ploye r (Wa rre n Count y Childre n Se rvic e s) a nd va rious individua l de fe nda nt s (t w o supe rvisors, t hre e c ount y c om m issione rs, t he Ex e c ut ive Dire c t or of Wa rre n Count y J obs & Fa m ily Se rvic e s, a nd “va rious J ohn Doe s a nd J a ne Doe s”). On J une 4 , 2 0 1 2 , t he de fe nda nt s m ove d t o dism iss c e rt a in c la im s a nd de fe nda nt s (doc . no. 1 1 ). Pla int iff re sponde d (doc . no. 1 8 ), a nd de fe nda nt s re plie d (doc . no. 2 3 ). On J uly 5 , 2 0 1 2 , pla int iff m ove d t o a m e nd a nd a t t a c he d a propose d “First Am e nde d Com pla int ” (doc . no. 1 7 ). T he de fe nda nt s oppose d le a ve t o a m e nd, la rge ly on grounds of fut ilit y (doc . no. 2 2 ). On August 2 , 2 0 1 2 , t he Court he ld a pre t ria l c onfe re nc e a nd he a rd ora l a rgum e nt s on t he pe nding m ot ions. Pla int iff’s propose d “First Am e nde d Com pla int ” fix e d one m inor de fe c t (i.e . a t ypogra phic a l e rror re ga rding a st a t ut e num be r) point e d out by de fe nda nts, re a sse rt e d a ll t he sa m e c la im s, a nd a dde d a c la im for “int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss” in a ne w Count Se ve n. As Rule 1 5 (a )(2 ) of t he 3 Fe de ra l Rule s of Civil Proc e dure provide s t ha t c ourt s should fre e ly gra nt le a ve t o a m e nd w he n just ic e so re quire s, a nd a s pla int iff sought t o a m e nd fa irly e a rly in t his c a se , t he Court gra nt e d le a ve t o a m e nd (doc . no. 2 5 ). T he “First Am e nde d Com pla int ” w a s file d in t he re c ord (doc . no. 2 6 ). I n c onjunc t ion w it h t he pre t ria l c onfe re nc e , t he Court he a rd ora l a rgum e nt on t he de fe nda nt s’ “M ot ion t o Dism iss” (doc . no. 1 1 ) a s a pplie d t o t he “First Am e nde d Com pla int .” While a n a m e nde d c om pla int supe rse de s t he prior ple a ding, a nd a ny m ot ions pe rt a ining t o t he prior ple a ding a re ge ne ra lly re nde re d m oot , t he de fe nda nt s point e d out t ha t t he ir a rgum e nt s for dism issa l a pply e qua lly t o t he pla int iff’s re a sse rt e d c la im s. M ore ove r, t he de fe nda nt s’ re ply brie f spe c ific a lly a ddre sse d t he “First Am e nde d Com pla int .” De fe nse c ounse l e x pre sse d c onc e rn a bout t he e x pe nse t o t he pa rt ie s of re pe t it ive re -brie fing. U nde r t he c irc um st a nc e s, a nd give n t ha t t he pa rt ie s w e re a fforde d full opport unit y t o ora lly a rgue t he issue s a s a pplie d t o t he “First Am e nde d Com pla int ,” t he Court found t ha t re -brie fing w a s not ne c e ssa ry. I n t he int e re st s of just ic e , a nd t o a void duplic a t ion of filings 4 a nd ne e dle ss e x pe nse t o a ll pa rt ie s, t he Court orde re d t ha t t he de fe nda nt s’ m ot ion t o dism iss be re inst a t e d w it h re spe c t t o t he “First Am e nde d Com pla int .” T he issue s in t ha t m ot ion, a s ora lly a rgue d be fore t he Court w it h re spe c t t o t he First Am e nde d Com pla int , w ill be a ddre sse d be low . I I . St a nda rd of Re vie w M ot ions t o dism iss pursua nt t o Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ) for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im for w hic h re lie f m a y be gra nt e d t e st t he suffic ie nc y of a c om pla int , a nd t he first st e p is t o ide nt ify a ny c onc lusory a lle ga t ions. Ashc roft v. I qba l, 1 2 9 S.Ct . 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 5 0 (2 0 0 9 ). T o survive a m ot ion t o dism iss, “a c om pla int m ust c ont a in suffic ie nt fa c t ua l m a t t e r, a c c e pt e d a s t rue , t o st a t e a c la im t o re lie f t ha t is pla usible on it s fa c e .” I d. a t 1 9 4 9 (quot ing Be ll At l. Corp. v. T w om bly, 5 5 0 U .S. 5 4 4 , 5 5 0 (2 0 0 7 )). “A c la im ha s fa c ia l pla usibilit y w he n t he pla int iff ple a ds fa c t ua l c ont e nt t ha t a llow s t he c ourt t o dra w t he re a sona ble infe re nc e t ha t t he de fe nda nt is lia ble for t he m isc onduc t a lle ge d.” I d. Alt hough t he c ourt m ust a c c e pt w e ll ple d fa c t ua l a lle ga t ions of t he c om pla int a s t rue for purpose s of a m otion t o dism iss, t he c ourt is “not bound t o a c c e pt a s 5 t rue a le ga l c onc lusion c ouc he d a s a fa c t ua l a lle ga t ion.” Be ll At la nt ic , 5 5 0 U .S. a t 5 5 5 . 1 I nit ia lly, pla int iff sugge st s t ha t “t he de fe nda nt s ha ve a t t a c k e d port ions of t he Com pla int by pre se nt ing supposit ion of m a t t e rs out side t he Com pla int ” a nd t ha t “[a ]s a re sult of suc h m a t e ria ls c ont a ine d a nd a t t a c he d t o t he De fe nda nt s’ m ot ion, it is m ove d by Pla int iff t ha t t he m ot ion t o dism iss be st ric k e n or . . . t o t re a t sa id m ot ion a s one for sum m a ry judgm e nt ” (doc . no. 1 8 a t 1 -2 ). I t is ina ppropria t e for pla int iff t o a sse rt a “m ot ion” in a re sponsive brie f. Pla int iff’s sugge st ion is a lso m e rit le ss. I n c onform it y w it h t he loc a l rule s, t he de fe nda nt s a t t a c he d a c opy of a n unpublishe d opinion t o t he ir m ot ion, not a ny “e vide nc e ” (doc . no. 1 1 -1 ). Se e S.D. Ohio Loc a l Rule 7 .2 (b)(4 ) (“if unre port e d or unoffic ia lly publishe d opinions a re c it e d, c opie s of t he opinions sha ll be m a de a va ila ble . . . by opposing c ounse l”). A c it a t ion t o a n unpublishe d opinion a nd a n a t t a c he d c ourt e sy c opy provide no re a son t o t re a t t he de fe nda nt ’s m ot ion t o dism iss a s one for sum m a ry judgm e nt . T he Court w ill c onside r t he 1 Alt hough bot h pa rt ie s a lso c it e Rule 1 2 (b)(1 ) (se e doc . nos. 1 1 a t 1 ; 1 8 a t 3 ), subje c t -m a t t e r jurisdic t ion is not a t issue he re . 6 m ot ion t o dism iss unde r Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ). I I I . Disc ussion A. Pla int iff’s I nit ia l Re fe re nc e t o I na pplic a ble St a t ut e s I n t he int roduc t ory pa ra gra ph of t he “First Am e nde d Com pla int ,” pla int iff re c it e s t ha t she brings “t his e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion a c t ion . . . unde r 4 2 U .S.C. § 1 9 8 1 a , 4 2 U .S.C. § 1 9 8 3 , 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e , e t se q., 2 9 U .S.C. § 6 2 1 , e t se q., a nd Ohio Re vise d Code § 4 1 2 2 , e t se q., ba se d upon de fe nda nt s’ disc rim ina t ory t re a t m e nt of pla int iff be c a use of he r se x a nd ra c e c re a t ing a host ile w ork e nvironm e nt a nd re t a lia t ion” (doc . no. 2 6 a t ¶ 1 ). M uc h of t ha t pa ra gra ph doe s not a ppe a r t o c orre spond w it h t he re st of t he a lle ga t ions in t he First Am e nde d Com pla int . De fe nda nt s c orre c t ly point out t ha t som e of t he se st a t ut e s a re not a pplic a ble a nd t ha t pla int iff ha s not ra ise d a ny c la im s of se x or a ge disc rim ina t ion in he r “se ve n c a use s of a c t ion” se t fort h in t he First Am e nde d Com pla int . Give n t ha t pla int iff’s int roduc t ory pa ra gra ph m e nt ions “disc rim ina t ory t re a t m e nt of pla int iff be c a use of he r se x ,” t he de fe nda nt s m ove t o dism iss be c a use t he First Am e nde d Com pla int se t s fort h no fa c t s t o support suc h a c la im . Pla int iff’s c ounse l c onc e de d in 7 t he w rit t e n re sponse , a nd a ga in a t ora l a rgum e nt , t ha t pla int iff is not a sse rt ing a c la im of se x disc rim ina t ion. For c la rit y’s sa k e , a nd t o t he e x t e nt suc h a c la im c ould be re a d int o t he c om pla int , suc h c la im is subje c t t o dism issa l pursua nt t o Fe d. R. Civ. P. 1 2 (b)(6 ) for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im for re lie f. Sim ila rly, a lt hough t he int roduc t ory pa ra gra ph re c it e s t ha t pla int iff (w ho is 3 6 ye a rs old) brings c la im s unde r 2 9 U .S.C. § 6 2 1 , e t se q., t he Age Disc rim ina t ion a nd Em ploym e nt Ac t (“ADEA”), t he re st of t he First Am e nde d Com pla int a lle ge s no fa c t s w ha t soe ve r re ga rding a ge disc rim ina t ion. Pla int iff doe s not a lle ge a c la im of a ge disc rim ina t ion in a ny of he r “se ve n c a use s of a c t ion” se t fort h in t he First Am e nde d Com pla int . T he ADEA ha s not hing t o do w it h t his c a se . 2 As for t he init ia l re fe re nc e t o 4 2 U .S.C. § § 1 9 8 1 (a ) a nd 1 9 8 3 , pla int iff’s “se ve n c a use s of a c t ion” se t fort h in t he re st of t he First Am e nde d Com pla int do not m e nt ion t he se st a t ut e s. H e r T it le V I I c la im in Count One a lle ge s only t ha t he r e m ploye r “sought t o displa c e [he r] 2 Pla int iff a lso e rrone ously re lie s on 2 9 U .S.C. § 6 2 6 , w hic h c onc e rns “re c ordk e e ping, inve st iga t ion, a nd e nforc e m e nt ” unde r t he ADEA, a s a ba sis for “jurisdic t ion” (doc . no. 2 6 a t 3 , ¶ 2 ). 8 ba se d upon ra c e ” (doc . no. 2 6 a t 1 0 , ¶ 3 1 ). I n ot he r w ords, she is a lle ging a disc re t e a c t of disc rim ina t ory disc ha rge , not a ny “c la ss-w ide disc rim ina t ion.” Se e H unt e r v. Se c re t a ry of U .S. Arm y, 5 6 5 F.3 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 4 -9 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (e x pla ining t he diffe re nc e be t w e e n a n individua l's T it le V I I c la im of disc re t e -a c t disc rim ina t ion a nd a § 1 9 8 1 a c t ion for c la ss-w ide disc rim ina t ory pra c t ic e s). I n he r brie f, pla int iff de vot e s only a single se nt e nc e t o t his issue , suc c inc t ly sugge st ing in c onc lusory fa shion t ha t t he se st a t ut e s “a pply” (doc . no. 1 8 a t 4 ). She c it e s no a ut horit y, offe rs no e x pla na t ion or le ga l a rgum e nt , a nd point s t o no fa c t s in support . T o t he e x t e nt t he int roduc t ory pa ra gra ph re c it e s t ha t pla int iff brings c la im s unde r t he se st a t ut e s, suc h c la im s ha ve be e n insuffic ie nt ly ple d a nd a re subje c t t o dism issa l. Pla int iff a c k now le dge s t ha t she only brings t he c la im s list e d in he r se ve n c a use s of a c t ion (doc . no. 1 8 a t 1 ). T he int roduc t ory pa ra gra ph furt he r re c it e s t ha t pla int iff brings a c la im unde r Ohio R.C. § 4 1 2 2 e t se q., but t his a ppe a rs t o be a not he r t ypogra phic a l e rror. Pla int iff is pre sum a bly re fe rring t o Ohio R.C. § 4 1 1 2 , give n t ha t Count Five a sse rt s a st a t e c la im of w rongful disc ha rge . 9 As for t he int roduc t ory pa ra gra ph’s re fe re nc e t o 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e , e t se q., t he First Am e nde d Com pla int doe s ple a d c la im s unde r T it le V I I of t he Civil Right s Ac t of 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e e t se q. T he Court w ill ne x t c onside r t he de fe nda nt s’ a rgum e nt s re ga rding t he se ve n c a use s of a c t ion a c t ua lly a lle ge d in t he First Am e nde d Com pla int. B. T it le V I I Cla im s for Da m a ge s M a y Only Be Brought Aga inst Em ploye r Pla int iff brings he r first c a use of a c t ion (“ra c e disc rim ina t ion”) unde r T it le V I I , but re fe rs t o unspe c ifie d plura l “de fe nda nt s.” T he de fe nda nt s c orre c t ly point out t ha t pla int iff m a y only a sse rt T it le V I I c la im s for c om pe nsa t ory da m a ge s a ga inst he r e m ploye r “Wa rre n Count y Childre n Se rvic e s” a nd t ha t no a c t iona ble T it le V I I c la im s e x ist a ga inst a ny supe rvisors or ot he r de fe nda nt s individua lly. J ohnson v. U niv. of Cinc inna t i, 2 1 5 F.3 d 5 6 1 , 5 7 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 0 ) (holding t ha t c la im s for c om pe nsa t ory da m a ge s unde r T it le V I I c a n only be brought a ga inst t he e m ploye r); 3 Wa t he n v. Ge ne ra l Ele c . Co., 1 1 5 F.3 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 4 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 7 ) (holding t ha t a supe rvisor w ho doe s not ot he rw ise qua lify a s a n “e m ploye r” c a nnot be he ld individua lly lia ble unde r T it le V I I ); 3 Pla int iff doe s not a sk for a ny injunc t ive re lie f. 10 Cona nt v. De la w a re Ct y. Bd. of Com 'rs, 2 0 1 1 WL 4 3 8 3 4 4 4 (S.D.Ohio) (sa m e ). Pla int iff a ppe a rs t o c onc e de t his (doc . no. 1 8 a t 5 ). T hus, dism issa l of pla int iff’s T it le V I I c la im in Count One a s t o t he individua l de fe nda nt s is a ppropria t e pursua nt t o Fe d. R. Civ. P. 1 2 (b)(6 ). C. Fa ilure t o Ex ha ust Ce rt a in Cla im s 1 . Re t a lia t ion Pla int iff’s se c ond c a use of a c t ion (“re t a lia t ion”) doe s not re fe r t o a ny st a t ut e , but pla int iff e x pla ins in he r brie f t ha t she brings t his c la im unde r T it le V I I (doc . no. 1 8 a t 5 ). T it le V I I prohibit s re t a lia t ion a ga inst a n e m ploye e be c a use she “ha s m a de a c ha rge , t e st ifie d, a ssist e d, or pa rt ic ipa t e d in a ny m a nne r in a n inve st iga t ion, proc e e ding, or he a ring” in c onne c t ion w it h a n a lle ge dly unla w ful e m ploym e nt pra c t ic e . 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e -3 (a ). Pla int iff did not indic a t e in he r EEOC Cha rge t ha t she did a ny of t he se t hings. As a t hre shold m a t t e r, t he de fe nda nt s a sse rt t ha t pla int iff fa ile d t o ra ise t his c la im in he r EEOC Cha rge , a nd t hus, fa ile d t o a dm inist ra t ive ly e x ha ust it . “As a ge ne ra l rule , a T it le V I I pla int iff c a nnot bring c la im s in a la w suit t ha t w e re not inc lude d in [he r] EEOC c ha rge .” Y ounis v. 11 Pinna c le Airline s, I nc ., 6 1 0 F.3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) (c it ing Ale x a nde r v. Ga rdne r De nve r Co., 4 1 5 U .S. 3 6 , 4 7 (1 9 7 4 )); se e a lso, Ble ssing v. Ohio U nive rsit y, 2 0 1 1 WL 6 0 7 6 3 2 7 , * 9 (S.D.Ohio). Pla int iff init ia lly c ont e nds t ha t if t he Court c onside rs pla int iff’s Cha rge (w hic h she a t t a c he d t o he r ow n c om pla int ), t he Court m ust c onside r t he e x ha ust ion issue on sum m a ry judgm e nt (doc . no. 1 8 a t 5 , ¶ C). Cont ra ry t o pla int iff’s a sse rt ion, t he de fe nse of fa ilure t o e x ha ust a dm inist ra t ive re m e die s m a y a ppropria t e ly be re solve d by m ot ion t o dism iss unde r Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ). Se e Y ouse ff v. Ford M ot or Co., I nc ., 2 0 0 0 WL 7 9 9 3 1 4 a t * 3 , n. 3 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 0 ); Cole m a n v. Ohio St a t e U niv. M e d. Ce nt e r, 2 0 1 1 WL 3 2 7 3 5 3 1 , * 8 (S.D.Ohio) (dism issing T it le V I I c la im for fa ilure t o e x ha ust ); Z ubovic h v. Wa l-M a rt St ore s Ea st , I nc ., 2 0 1 0 WL 1 7 4 2 1 1 7 , * 3 (N .D.Ohio) (sa m e ). I n doing so, t he Court m a y a ppropria t e ly c onside r t he Cha rge w it hout c onve rt ing t o sum m a ry judgm e nt . We ine r v. K la is & Co., I nc ., 1 0 8 F.3 d 8 6 , 8 8 -8 9 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 7 ); T ot h v. Gra nd T ruc k R.R., 3 0 6 F.3 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c ourt s m a y t a k e judic ia l not ic e of orde rs issue d by a dm inist ra t ive a ge nc ie s, suc h a s t he EEOC, pursua nt t o t he ir de le ga t e d a ut horit y). 12 Adm inist ra t ive e x ha ust ion is a c ondit ion pre c e de nt t o filing T it le V I I c la im s in fe de ra l c ourt . Z ipe s v. T ra ns World Airline s, I nc ., 4 5 5 U .S. 3 8 5 , 3 9 2 (1 9 8 2 ) (e x pla ining t ha t t his is not “jurisdic t iona l”). “Be fore bringing a T it le V I I c la im in fe de ra l c ourt , a lit iga nt m ust ra ise t he c la im in a . . . c ha rge file d w it h t he EEOC.” H ollim on v. She lby Count y, 2 0 0 9 WL 1 1 1 9 2 8 2 , * 3 (6 t h Cir. (K y); Am ini v. Obe rlin Colle ge , 2 5 9 F.3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 1 ). T he c ha rge m ust be “suffic ie nt ly pre c ise t o ide nt ify t he pa rt ie s, a nd to de sc ribe ge ne ra lly t he a c t ion or pra c t ic e s t he st a t ut ory c om pla ine d of.” 2 9 C.F.R. § 1 6 0 1 .1 2 (b). Alt hough pla int iff urge s t he Court to ignore e x ha ust ion re quire m e nt , it is w e ll-se t t le d t ha t filing a n EEOC c om pla int is a ne c e ssa ry pre re quisit e t o filing a T it le V I I suit in fe de ra l c ourt . Da vis v. Sode x ho, Cum be rla nd Colle ge Ca fe t e ria , 1 5 7 F.3 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 3 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 8 ); Am ini, 2 5 9 F.3 d a t 4 9 8 . T he purpose of a n EEOC c ha rge is t o give “not ic e t o t he a lle ge d w rongdoe r of it s pot e nt ia l lia bilit y” a nd e na ble t he EEOC “t o init ia t e c onc ilia t ion proc e dure s in a t t e m pt t o a void lit iga t ion.” Dix on v. Ashc ra ft , 3 9 2 F.3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). Court s ha ve re pe a t e dly he ld t ha t t he fa ilure 13 to indic a t e t he t ype of disc rim ina t ion be ing c la im e d on a c ha rge form is m ore t ha n a “m e re t e c hnic a lit y,” a nd m a y be grounds for dism issa l of a c la im . Abe it a v. T ra nsAm e ric a M a ilings, I nc ., 1 5 9 F.3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 0 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 8 ); Da vis, 1 5 7 F.3 d a t 4 6 2 (obse rving t ha t “t he c ha rge filing re quire m e nt w ould be w rit t e n out of t he la w , a nd t he t rigge ring a nd c onc ilia t ion func t ions disa ble d if t he pla int iff's a rgum e nt s w e re a c c e pt e d”). Em ploye e s w ho file EEOC c ha rge s oft e n do so w it hout c ounse l, a nd t hus, t he e x ha ust ion re quire m e nt m a y be sa t isfie d if t he c la im c a n be re a sona bly e x pe c t e d t o grow out of t he fa c t ua l a lle ga t ions in t he EEOC c ha rge . Ra ndolph v. Ohio De p't of Y out h Se rvs., 4 5 3 F.3 d 7 2 4 , 7 3 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ); Da vis, 1 5 7 F.3 d a t 4 6 3 . T he Six t h Circ uit ha s he ld t ha t c la im s a re “re a sona bly re la t e d” for purpose s of e x ha ust ion w he n fa c t s re la t e d t o t he c ha rge d c la im “w ould prom pt t he EEOC t o inve st iga t e a diffe re nt , unc ha rge d c la im .” We ige l v. Ba pt ist H osp. of Ea st T e nn., 3 0 2 F.3 d 3 6 7 , 3 8 0 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 ). Court s w ill c onst rue c ha rge s libe ra lly, but a c ha rge m ust give t he e m ploye r a de qua te not ic e of t he na t ure of t he e m ploye e ’s a lle ga t ions a nd a n opport unit y t o inve st iga t e a nd re spond. Cole m a n v. Ohio St a t e 14 U niv. M e d. Ce nt e r, 2 0 1 1 WL 3 2 7 3 5 3 1 , * 8 (S.D.Ohio). Alt hough pla int iff indic a t e s in he r brie f t ha t she w a s “pro se ” a nd “sought t o m a k e a re t a lia t ion c la im be fore t he EEOC” (doc . no. 1 8 a t 5 ), he r EEOC Cha rge re fle c t s t ha t pla int iff c he c k e d only t he box e s for se x a nd ra c e “disc rim ina t ion.” She did not c he c k “re t a lia t ion.” She a lso did not provide fa c t s in t he na rra t ive se c t ion of he r Cha rge indic a t ing she ha d e nga ge d in a ny prot e c t e d a c t ivit y prior t o he r disc ha rge (doc . no. 2 6 a t 2 0 ). Whe n a lle ge d re t a lia t ion oc c urs be fore t he filing of t he Cha rge , it is not e x c e pt e d from T it le V I I ’s e x ha ust ion re quire m e nt . Se e Abe it a , 1 5 9 F.3 d a t 2 5 4 (re t a lia t ion c la im s ba se d on c onduc t t ha t oc c urre d be fore t he c ha rge is file d m ust be inc lude d in t he c ha rge ); K urt z v. M c H ugh, 4 2 3 Fe d.Appx . 5 7 2 , 5 7 6 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 1 ) (sa m e ). “Disc rim ina t ion a nd re t a lia t ion a re dist inc t c la im s w hic h m ust be c le a rly ide nt ifie d in t he c ha rge ” a nd a fa ilure t o c he c k t he box for re t a lia t ion c ouple d w it h a fa ilure t o m e nt ion re t a lia t ion or re c it e fa c t s a lluding t o suc h c ha rge on t he form c onst it ut e s a fa ilure t o e x ha ust a dm inist ra t ive re m e die s. Se e , e .g., Ada m ov v. U .S. Ba nk N a t l. Assn., 7 7 6 F. Supp2 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 0 -4 5 2 (W.D. K y. 2 0 1 1 ) (dism issing une x ha ust e d 15 re t a lia t ion c la im be c a use pla int iff’s EEOC Cha rge a lle ge d disc rim ina t ion, but fa ile d t o m e nt ion a ny re t a lia t ion). Pla int iff’s Cha rge a lle ge d dispa ra t e t re a t m e nt , disc rim ina t ion due t o ra c e a nd se x , a nd c om pla ine d of he r t e rm ina t ion (doc . no. 2 6 a t 2 0 ). She did not m e nt ion “re t a lia t ion” or indic a t e she e nga ge d in a ny prot e c t e d a c t ivit y, a nd he r na rra t ive in t he Cha rge w ould not prom pt t he EEOC t o inve st iga t e a se pa ra t e c la im of re t a lia t ion. Se e Y ounis, 6 1 0 F.3 d a t 3 6 3 . H e r e m ploye r w a s not give n a ny not ic e of suc h c la im , a nd t he EEOC did not issue pla int iff a “Right t o Sue ” for suc h c la im . Alt hough pla int iff now a rgue s t ha t she int e nde d t o a lle ge re t a lia t ion ba se d on som e one e lse ’s e a rlie r c ha rge (doc . no. 2 6 a t 9 , ¶ 2 7 ), pla int iff c it e s no a ut horit y for t he not ion t ha t she c ould do so. Pla int iff did not m e nt ion a ny fa c t s re ga rding prot e c t e d a c t ivit y or re t a lia t ion in he r Cha rge a nd c a nnot bla m e t he EEOC for he r ow n om ission. M e re “pro se ” st a t us doe s not e x c use t he fa ilure t o e x ha ust a c la im . Pla int iff ha s not show n a ny pla usible ba sis for e quit a ble re lie f from t he e x ha ust ion re quire m e nt . T he Six t h Circ uit Court of Appe a ls ha s c a ut ione d t ha t a llow ing 16 une x ha ust e d c la im s t o proc e e d in fe de ra l c ourt w ould de prive t he e m ploye r of not ic e a nd frust ra t e t he EEOC's inve st iga t ory a nd c onc ilia t ory role . Y ounis, 6 1 0 F.3 d a t 3 6 2 . Pla int iff’s re t a lia t ion c la im is une x ha ust e d a nd subje c t t o dism issa l. N a t iona l R.R. Pa sse nge r Corp. v. M orga n, 5 3 6 U .S. 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 (2 0 0 2 ) (obse rving t ha t disc re t e re t a lia t ory a c t oc c urs, for purpose s of c ha rge filing re quire m e nt of T it le V I I , upon da t e it ha ppe ns, suc h t ha t pla int iff m ust file t im e ly EEOC c ha rge or lose a bilit y t o re c ove r for it in T it le V I I a c t ion); 4 2 U .S.C.A. § 2 0 0 0 e –5 (e )(1 ). 2 . H ost ile Work Environm e nt Alt hough none of t he se ve n c a use s of a c t ion in t he First Am e nde d Com pla int indic a t e t ha t pla int iff is ra ising a “host ile w ork e nvironm e nt ” c la im , t he de fe nda nt s not e t ha t t he int roduc t ory se c t ion of t he First Am e nde d Com pla int m e nt ions “host ile w ork e nvironm e nt .” T o t he e x t e nt pla int iff m a y be a t t e m pt ing t o a sse rt suc h a c la im , de fe nda nt s m ove t o dism iss it for la c k of e x ha ust ion be c a use pla int iff did not ra ise it in he r EEOC Cha rge . I nst e a d, he r Cha rge a lle ge d t ha t she w a s subje c t e d t o “diffe re nt t e rm s a nd c ondit ions” a nd c it e d se ve ra l inst a nc e s of a lle ge d dispa ra t e t re a t m e nt , i.e . he r fe m a le supe rvisor t old 17 he r she dre sse d ina ppropria t e ly (i.e . lik e a “st rippe r”), did not t ra in he r, did not give pla int iff a n int e rim e va lua t ion, a nd ga ve pla int iff only a ne ga t ive e va lua t ion on he r la st da y of e m ploym e nt . U nde r T it le V I I , t w o t ype s of a c t ions m a y be brought : (1 ) “disc re t e disc rim ina t ory a c t s,” a nd (2 ) c la im s a lle ging a “host ile w ork e nvironm e nt .” N a t 'l R.R. Pa sse nge r Corp. v. M orga n, 5 3 6 U .S. 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 -1 1 5 (2 0 0 2 ) (“H ost ile e nvironm e nt c la im s a re diffe re nt in k ind from disc re t e a c t s”). A host ile w ork e nvironm e nt c la im involve s “ha ra ssm e nt t ha t unre a sona bly int e rfe re s w it h [a pe rson’s] w ork pe rform a nc e a nd c re a t e s an obje c t ive ly int im ida t ing, host ile , or offe nse w ork e nvironm e nt .” Gra c e v. U SCAR, 5 2 1 F.3 d 6 5 5 , 6 7 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 8 ). Whe re a pla int iff a lle ge s only disc re t e a c t s of disc rim ina t ion in a Cha rge , t he c ha rge m a y not be c onst rue d a s ra ising a “host ile w ork e nvironm e nt ” c la im . Y ounis, 6 1 0 F.3 d a t 3 6 2 ; H unt e r, 5 6 5 F.3 d a t 9 9 3 -9 4 (a lle ge d de nia ls of t ra ining w e re disc re t e a c t s of disc rim ina t ion, ra t he r t ha n a c t s c onst it ut ing a host ile w ork e nvironm e nt ); J one s v. Cit y of Fra nk lin, 309 Fe d.Appx . 938, 9 4 3 -4 4 disc re t e -disc rim ina t ory-a c t (6 t h c la im s 18 Cir. from 2009) (dist inguishing host ile -w ork -e nvironm e nt c la im s, a nd obse rving t ha t “[n]o de c ision in t his c irc uit ha s he ld t ha t EEOC c ha rge s re ga rding disc re t e a c t s of disc rim ina t ion a re a lone suffic ie nt t o put t he EEOC on not ic e of a host ile -w ork -e nvironm e nt c la im ”), c e rt . de nie d, 1 3 0 S.Ct . 8 0 0 (2 0 0 9 ). I n he r Cha rge , pla int iff c om pla ine d of se ve ra l disc re t e a c t s of “dispa ra t e t re a t m e nt ” but did not a lle ge a “host ile w ork e nvironm e nt .” Y ounis, 6 1 0 F.3 d a t 3 6 2 (“t he inc lusion in a n EEOC c ha rge of a disc re t e act or a c t s, st a nding a lone , is insuffic ie nt to e st a blish a host ile -w ork -e nvironm e nt c la im for purpose s of e x ha ust ion”); Brow n v. Cit y of Cle ve la nd, 2 9 4 Fe d. Appx . 2 2 6 , 2 3 4 -3 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (holding t ha t a n EEOC inve st iga t ion of a host ile w ork e nvironm e nt c la im c ould not re a sona bly be e x pe c t e d t o re sult from a c ha rge de sc ribing t he de nia l of a prom ot ion). Pla int iff m a y not e x pa nd he r c la im s be yond t he sc ope of he r Cha rge a nd t he EEOC’s inve st iga t ion. Se e Sc ot t v. Ea st m a n Che m Co., 2 7 5 Fe d. Appx . 4 6 6 , 4 7 4 -7 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (a ffirm ing dism issa l of re t a lia t ion a nd host ile w ork e nvironm e nt c la im s be c a use t he y w e re "not suffic ie nt ly de sc ribe d in he r EEOC c ha rge , w e re not inve st iga t e d 19 by t he EEOC, a nd w e re not re a sona bly w it hin t he sc ope of t he EEOC inve st iga t ion"); M c Fa gdon v. Fre sh M a rk e t , I nc ., 2 0 0 5 WL 2 7 6 8 9 9 6 , * 4 -5 (W.D. T e nn.) (dism issing pla int iff's c la im s for re t a lia t ion a nd host ile w ork e nvironm e nt be c a use pla int iff did not ra ise t he m in he r c ha rge ). D. N e glige nt I nflic t ion of Em ot iona l Dist re ss (Count Six ) N e x t , t he de fe nda nt s m ove t o dism iss pla int iff’s six t h c a use of a c t ion, w hic h pla int iff inc om ple t e ly c a pt ions a s “inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss.” Pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t t he “[d]e fe nda nt t e rm ina t e d he r e m ploym e nt w it hout be ne fit of a prope r pe rform a nc e re vie w ” a nd t ha t suc h c onduc t w a s “ne glige nt ” (doc . no. 2 6 a t 1 4 , ¶ ¶ 5 2 -5 3 ). Alt hough pla int iff a lso a sse rt s in c onc lusory fa shion t ha t t his c onduc t “c a n be c onside re d e x t re m e a nd out ra ge ous” (¶ 5 6 ), c ourt s ne e d not a c c e pt a s t rue “a le ga l c onc lusion c ouc he d a s a fa c t ua l a lle ga t ion.” Be ll At la nt ic , 5 5 0 U .S. a t 5 5 5 . De fe nda nt s a pt ly point out t ha t pla int iff’s “a m e nde d c om pla int c ont inue s t o ple a d only ne glige nt c onduc t ” (doc . no. 2 3 a t 2 ). As a m a t t e r of la w , Ohio la w doe s not re c ognize ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss in t he e m ploym e nt t e rm ina t ion c ont e x t . Doe v. Se x Se a rc h.c om , 5 5 1 F.3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (obse rving t ha t 20 Ohio c ourt s ha ve lim it e d “re c ove ry for ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss t o inst a nc e s w he re t he pla int iff ha s e it he r w it ne sse d or e x pe rie nc e d a da nge rous a c c ide nt or a ppre c ia t e d t he a c t ua l physic a l pe ril”) (c it ing H e ine r v. M ore t uzzo, 7 3 Ohio St .3 d 8 0 , 8 6 (1 9 9 5 ); Ge a ring v. N a t ionw ide I ns. Co., 7 6 Ohio St .3 d 3 4 , 4 0 (1 9 9 6 ) (“Ohio c ourt s ha ve lim it e d re c ove ry for c la im s a lle ging ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss t o sit ua t ions suc h a s w he re t he pla int iff w a s a byst a nde r t o a n a c c ide nt or w a s in fe a r of physic a l c onse que nc e s t o his ow n pe rson”). Pla int iff doe s not a lle ge t ha t she w it ne sse d or e x pe rie nc e d a “da nge rous a c c ide nt ,” or t ha t she fe a re d a ny “physic a l pe ril.” Conse que nt ly, she ha s not st a t e d a c la im for ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss unde r Ohio la w . Se e , e .g., Y oung v. Da yt on, 2 0 1 2 WL 1 6 8 0 1 0 0 , * 9 (S.D.Ohio) (obse rving t ha t Ohio doe s not re c ognize suc h a c la im in t he e m ploym e nt c ont e x t a nd e x pla ining t ha t “a c la im of ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss sim ply doe s not fit t he fa c t s a t issue in t his c a se ”). Count Six is subje c t t o dism issa l a s a m a t t e r of la w . I n he r re sponse , pla int iff t rie s t o re c ha ra c t e rize t his c a use of a c t ion a s int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss. She a rgue s t ha t 21 he r six t h c a use of a c t ion ha s be e n “c la rifie d a s int e nt iona l c onduc t ” (doc . no. 1 8 a t 6 ). Pla int iff’s single se nt e nc e c ha ra c t e riza t ion is c onc lusory, ignore s t he fa c t s a lle ge d in t hose c ount s, a nd fa ils t o a ddre ss t he de fe nda nt s’ le ga l a rgum e nt s. T a k ing a ll w e ll-ple a de d non-c onc lusory fa c t ua l a lle ga t ions a s t rue , Count s Six c om pla ins of e m ot iona l dist re ss a rising from he r e m ploym e nt t e rm ina t ion, not a ny c onduc t t ha t rise s t o t he “e x t re m e a nd out ra ge ous” le ve l ne c e ssa ry t o st a t e a n a c t iona ble c la im of int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss. Se e Sinc la ir v. Donova n, 2 0 1 1 WL 5 3 2 6 0 9 3 , * 1 1 (S.D.Ohio) (J .Spie ge l) (“w it hout a n a lle ga t ion of c onduc t t ha t , a s a m a t t e r of la w , is e x t re m e a nd out ra ge ous, pla int iffs' c la im m ust be dism isse d”); M ille r v. Currie , 5 0 F.3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 7 -7 8 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“I t is w e ll a c c e pt e d t ha t int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss c la im s m a y e nt ire ly a ppropria t e ly be de a lt w it h . . . in a m ot ion t o dism iss” a nd obse rving t ha t a t ria l c ourt m a y rule , a s a m a t t e r of la w , t ha t c e rt a in c onduc t doe s not rise t o t he e x t re m e le ve l ne c e ssa ry t o st a t e a c la im ); H a nly v. Rive rside M e t hodist H ospit a l, 7 8 Ohio App.3 d 7 3 , 8 2 (1 9 9 1 ) (t he a lle ge d c onduc t m ust be “e x t re m e a nd out ra ge ous”); 22 M a nn v. Cinc inna t i Enquire r, 2 0 1 0 WL 3 3 2 8 6 3 1 , * 5 (Ohio App. 1 st Dist .) (a ffirm ing dism issa l of c la im of int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im be c a use t he c onduc t a lle ge d by pla int iff did not rise t o t he “e x t re m e a nd out ra ge ous” le ve l). Re ga rdle ss of how c ha ra c t e rize d, Count Six is subje c t t o dism issa l for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im pursua nt t o Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ). Eve n if pla int iff “int e nds” Count Six t o a lle ge “int e nt iona l” ra t he r t ha n “ne glige nt ” c onduc t , de fe nda nts a lso point out t ha t t he polit ic a l subdivision de fe nda nt s a re im m une from int e nt iona l t ort c la im s pursua nt t o Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 (doc . no. 2 6 a t 3 ). M ore ove r, Count Six e sse nt ia lly duplic a t e s Count Se ve n, w hic h is a ddre sse d be low . E. I nt e nt iona l I nfle c t ion of Em ot iona l Dist re ss (Count Se ve n) Pla int iff’s First Am e nde d Com pla int a dds a ne w c la im inc om ple t e ly c a pt ione d a s “inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss.” T his c la im a lle ge s t ha t “De fe nda nt Pa t ric ia L. J a c obs use d he r a ut horit y a s Ex e c ut ive Dire c t or for Wa rre n Count y Childre n Se rvic e s on be ha lf of sa id a ge nc y t o c a use Pla int iff’s e m ploym e nt t o be t e rm ina t e d” (doc . no. 2 6 a t 1 5 , ¶ 5 8 ). I n he r re sponse , pla int iff indic a t e s she int e nds t his t o be 23 a c la im of int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss (doc . no. 1 8 a t 6 ). Lik e Count Six , Count Se ve n doe s not a lle ge c onduc t rising t o t he “e x t re m e a nd out ra ge ous” le ve l ne c e ssa ry t o st a t e a n a c t iona ble c la im of int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss. H a nly, 7 8 Ohio App.3 d a t 82. M ore ove r, t he polit ic a l subdivision de fe nda nt s a re im m une from suc h “int e nt iona l” t ort c la im s pursua nt t o “T he Polit ic a l Subdivision T ort Lia bilit y Ac t ,” c odifie d in Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 , e t se q. Spe c ific a lly, Ohio R.C. 2 7 4 4 .0 2 (A)(1 ) provide s t ha t : “a polit ic a l subdivision is not lia ble in da m a ge s in a c ivil a c t ion for injury, de a t h, or loss t o pe rson or prope rt y a lle ge dly c a use d by a ny a c t or om ission of t he polit ic a l subdivision or a n e m ploye e of t he polit ic a l subdivision in c onne c t ion w it h a gove rnm e nt a l or proprie t a ry func t ion.” “As a ge ne ra l rule , polit ic a l subdivisions a nd t he ir e m ploye e s a re not lia ble for injury c a use d by a ny a c t ion of t he subdivision or it s e m ploye e s in c onne c t ion w it h a gove rnm e nt a l func t ion.” Woods v. M ia m isburg Cit y Sc hools, 2 5 4 F.Supp.2 d 8 6 8 , 8 7 9 -8 0 (S.D. Ohio 2 0 0 3 ) (dism issing t ort c la im s pursua nt t o Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ) ba se d on st a t ut ory im m unit y). Alt hough Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 .0 2 (B) provide s som e e x c e pt ions t o 24 im m unit y, t he Ohio Supre m e Court ha s he ld t ha t t his st a t ut e doe s not provide a n e x c e pt ion for int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss or ot he r int e nt iona l t ort s. H ubba rd v. Ca nt on Cit y Sc hool Bd. of Educ ., 9 7 Ohio St .3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 (2 0 0 2 ); Wilson v. St a rk Ct y. De pt . of H um a n Se rv., 7 0 Ohio St .3 d 4 5 0 , 4 5 2 (1 9 9 4 ) (“[t ]he re a re no e x c e pt ions t o im m unit y for . . . int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss”). T his c la im is subje c t t o dism issa l a s a m a t t e r of la w . F. Sla nde r Pe r Se (Count T hre e ) a nd Sla nde r Pe r Quod (Count Four) Pla int iff ha s na m e d va rious c ount y offic ia ls a s de fe nda nt s (i.e . J a c obs, Ba rge r, Gully, Ariss, Sout h, Y oung, a nd va rious J ohn/J a ne Doe s). I n Count s T hre e a nd Four, pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t t he “individua l de fe nda nt s” spok e “fa lse a nd de fa m a t ory” w ords a bout he r (doc . no. 2 6 a t 1 1 , ¶ ¶ 3 8 , 4 2 -4 3 ). Pla int iff doe s not ide nt ify a ny pa rt ic ula r pe rson a s t he spe a k e r of t he a lle ge d sla nde r. T he fa c t ua l “ba c k ground” se c t ion a lle ge s only t ha t a single unide nt ifie d “m a na ge m e nt offic ia l” m a de a single st a t e m e nt dire c t ly t o pla int iff, i.e ., t ha t pla int iff “w a s w e a ring c lot hing t ha t sugge st e d t ha t she w a s a prost it ut e ” (¶ 2 0 ). Re ga rdle ss of w hic h de fe nda nt m a y ha ve spok e n t hose a lle ge d 25 w ords, t he de fe nda nt s a sse rt t ha t a ny “polit ic a l subdivision” de fe nda nt s, inc luding individua l de fe nda nt s sue d in t he ir offic ia l c a pa c it ie s, a re e nt it le d t o im m unit y unde r Ohio la w for int e nt iona l t ort s, t he re by w a rra nt ing dism issa l of suc h c la im s a ga inst t he m pursua nt t o Fe d. R. Civ. P. 1 2 (b)(6 ). De fe nda nt s c it e num e rous Ohio c a se s holding t ha t de fa m a t ion/sla nde r is c la ssifie d a s a n int e nt iona l t ort a nd t ha t t he re a re no e x c e pt ions t o im m unit y for int e nt iona l t ort s (doc . no. 1 1 a t 1 0 ). Se e , e .g., Coope r, 8 1 Ohio App.3 d a t 7 3 7 ; H olzba c h v. J a c k son T w p., 2 0 0 0 WL 1 0 3 5 7 9 8 (Ohio App. 5 Dist ), disc re t iona ry re vie w de nie d, 9 0 Ohio St .3 d 1 4 6 8 (2 0 0 0 ). I n he r re sponse , pla int iff a rgue s t ha t one of t he five e x c e pt ions t o im m unit y a pplie s (doc . no. 1 8 a t 8 ). Se e Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 .0 2 (B)(2 ) (ne glige nt pe rform a nc e of proprie t a ry func t ions). Pla int iff it a lic ize s t he t e rm “proprie t a ry func t ions” but doe s not e x pla in w ha t proprie t a ry func t ion is a lle ge dly involve d or w hy t his e x c e pt ion w ould a pply. Ohio R.C. 2 7 4 4 .0 1 (G)(1 )(a -b) provide s: “Proprie t a ry func t ion” m e a ns a func t ion of a polit ic a l subdivision t ha t is spe c ifie d in division (G)(2 ) of t his se c t ion or t ha t sa t isfie s bot h of t he follow ing: 26 (a ) T he func t ion is not one de sc ribe d in division (C)(1 )(a ) or (b) of t his se c t ion a nd is not one spe c ifie d in division (C)(2 ) of t his se c t ion; (b) T he func t ion is one t ha t prom ot e s or pre se rve s t he public pe a c e , he a lth, sa fe t y, or w e lfa re a nd t ha t involve s a c t ivit ie s t ha t a re c ust om a rily e nga ge d in by nongove rnm e nt a l pe rsons. Division (G)(2 ) provide s a non-e x c lusive list of proprie t a ry func t ions, none of w hic h a re pe rt ine nt he re . Division (C)(2 )(m ) spe c ifie s t ha t “t he ope ra t ion of a job a nd fa m ily se rvic e s de pa rt m e nt or a ge nc y” is a gove rnm e nt a l func t ion, ra t he r t ha n a proprie t a ry func t ion. Pla int iff doe s not e x pla in how t he int e nt iona l t ort s a lle ge d in Count s T hre e a nd Four (t he sla nde r c la im s) w ould involve “ne glige nt ” pe rform a nc e of a ny “proprie t a ry” func t ion for purpose s of Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 .0 2 (B)(2 ), nor doe s she c it e a ny re le va nt a ut horit y. Pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t t his e x c e pt ion a pplie s, a nd t hus, t he im m unit y a na lysis c onc lude s he re . Se e H ort m a n v. M ia m isburg, 1 1 0 O.St .3 d 1 9 4 , 1 9 7 (2 0 0 6 ) (e x pla ining t ha t if no e x c e pt ion a pplie s, t he im m unit y a na lysis ne e d not go a ny furt he r). T he “polit ic a l subdivision” de fe nda nt s a re e nt it le d t o im m unit y on Count s T hre e a nd Four. I n he r re sponse , de spit e a rguing t ha t a n e x c e pt ion a pplie s, 27 pla int iff a ppe a rs (inc onsist e nt ly) t o c onc e de t he im m unit y issue by indic a t ing t ha t he r sla nde r c la im s a re only “a ga inst t he individua l de fe nda nt s” (doc . no. 1 8 a t 7 ). At ora l a rgum e nt , pla int iff’s c ounse l e x pla ine d t ha t he m e a nt t he t w o de fe nda nt s (Ba rge r a nd J a c obs) w ho a re sue d “individua lly” in t he First Am e nde d Com pla int. T he de fe nda nt s ha ve not a rgue d for dism issa l of t he sla nde r c la im s a ga inst Ba rge r a nd J a c obs “individua lly” ba se d on im m unit y (doc . no. 2 3 a t 4 ). V. Conc lusion For t he fore going re a sons, t he de fe nda nt s’ m ot ion t o dism iss is w e ll-t a k e n, a nd t he c la im s a nd pa rt ie s subje c t t o dism issa l a re se t fort h be low . T he Court obse rve s t ha t t his doe s not dispose of t he e nt ire c a se . T he pla int iff’s T it le V I I ra c e disc rim ina t ion c la im in Count One re m a ins a ga inst t he e m ploye r. Pla int iff’s sla nde r c la im s in Count s T hre e a nd Four re m a in a ga inst Ba rge r a nd J a c obs, “individua lly.” Also, t he de fe nda nt s’ m ot ion t o dism iss did not a ddre ss t he fift h c a use of a c t ion for w rongful disc ha rge unde r st a t e la w , Ohio R.C. § 4 1 1 2 , a nd t hus, t ha t c la im a lso re m a ins. Ac c ordingly, t he de fe nda nt s’ “M ot ion t o Dism iss” (doc . no. 1 1 ) 28 pursua nt t o Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ) is GRAN T ED, a s follow s: 1 . Any “c la im s” of se x a nd a ge disc rim ina t ion, or unde r 4 2 U .S.C. § § 1 9 8 1 a nd 1 9 8 3 , a re insuffic ie nt ly ple d a nd a re DI SM I SSED for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im ; 2 . Count One (T it le V I I ra c e disc rim ina t ion) pe rt a ins only t o t he e m ploye r a nd is DI SM I SSED a s t o a ny individua l de fe nda nt s; 3 . t he T it le V I I re t a lia t ion a nd host ile w ork e nvironm e nt c la im s a re DI SM I SSED for fa ilure t o e x ha ust a dm inist ra t ive re m e die s; 4 . Count s T hre e a nd Four (st a t e sla nde r c la im s) a re DI SM I SSED on grounds of im m unit y pursua nt t o Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 , e x c e pt a s t o t he t w o de fe nda nt s sue d “individua lly;” 5 . Count Six (ne glige nt inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss) is DI SM I SSED for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im ; 6 . Count Se ve n (int e nt iona l inflic t ion of e m ot iona l dist re ss) is DI SM I SSED for fa ilure t o st a t e a c la im a nd on grounds of im m unit y pursua nt t o Ohio R.C. § 2 7 4 4 . T his c a se sha ll proc e e d a s sc he dule d. I T I S SO ORDERED. s/H e rm a n J . We be r H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court 29
]]>
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.
