Billy v. Homes
| Decision Date | 21 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-00058-JNP-EJF |
| Parties | VANESSA BILLY; Plaintiff, v. EDGE HOMES, a Utah limited liability company; EDGE CONSTRUCTION, a Utah limited liability company; STEVE MADDOX; and DOES 1-50, inclusive; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") filed by defendants Edge Homes, LLC, Edge Construction, LLC, and Steve Maddox (collectively, "Defendants") seeking dismissal of six of plaintiff Vanessa Billy's ("Plaintiff") seven causes of action. Defendants filed their initial Motion on March 27, 2019, see ECF No. 27, and supplemented that Motion with a distinct argument on May 2, 2019, see ECF No. 32. The court entertained oral argument on the Motion on December 10, 2019. Now being fully advised, the court enters the following order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion.
This dispute arises from Plaintiff's one-year employment with Defendants. In December 2016, Edge Homes, LLC and Edge Construction, LLC (collectively, "Edge") hired Plaintiff as a full-time Contract Coordinator in its office located in Draper, Utah. Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor was Steve Maddox ("Maddox"), who "was in the position of power, authority, and control over Ms. Billy's job and promotion opportunities." Am. Compl. ¶ 37. Prior to December 2016, Edge had instituted a harassment at the workplace policy. The policy prohibits sexual harassment and defines it as:
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when, for example: (i) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (ii) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (iii) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Id. ¶ 28. The policy also states, in relevant part, that "[s]exual harassment may include a range of subtle and not so subtle behaviors" such as:
unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; sexual jokes and innuendos; verbal abuse of a sexual nature; commentary about an individual's body, sexual prowess or sexual deficiencies; leering, catcalls or touching; insulting or obscene comments or gestures; display or circulation in the workplace of sexually suggestive objects or pictures (including through e-mail); and other physical, verbal or visual conduct of a sexual nature.
Id. It also prohibits gender discrimination that is "not involving sexual activity or language." Id.
Plaintiff alleges that soon after she began her employment, Maddox began giving her unwanted attention at work that "escalat[ed]" into "pervasive, offensive, and unsolicited" sexually discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory conduct. Id. ¶¶ 29, 34. She asserts that "Maddox began with subtle behaviors" such as "asking her repeated questions about her personal life; questions about her boyfriend; how much money he made; why she wasn't married to her boyfriend." Id. ¶ 30. He also began oversharing his own romantic relationship and desires. Id. ¶ 31. For example, Plaintiff alleges that in or around February 2017, Maddox began "sharing . . . inappropriate stories from his life and his encounters with women" and stated he "wanted a woman with olive skin, dark hair" who was " an active woman, healthy and fit." Id. ¶¶ 32, 33, 39. During company meetings, Maddox also "openly joked inappropriately and offensively, intending and directing comments to [Plaintiff]" that "subjected her to ridicule and embarrassment." Id. ¶ 35.
Plaintiff alleges that Maddox's behavior began to escalate in or around March 2017. She recalls that he would "call[] her into his private office alone" and make "pervasive, offensive, unwelcomed, and unsolicited advances to" her. Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff also asserts that she was similarly uncomfortable when Maddox approached her desk, which "was in a corner of the office," "backed against a wall" and she felt "trapped and fearful of losing her job" when Maddox spoke to her there. Id. ¶ 36. During one such occasion in May 2017, Plaintiff recounts that Maddox approached her and said that he "felt like throwing a woman down on a table and f***ing her hard." Id. ¶ 38. She asserts that Maddox made this and similar comments for their "shock value" and would "become angry and hostile" if she was unresponsive, often by making "demeaning demands and statements" directed at Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 38, 42. Plaintiff also alleges that in or around September 2017, Maddox said he "liked her hair," and then touched her hair and head "in an offensive, unwelcomed, unsolicited, and unpermitted manner." Id. ¶ 41.
Plaintiff states that she rejected Maddox's advances, including by making complaints to Edge and to Maddox himself. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 34, 35, 39, 43. She recalls that at first, Maddox "would just laugh at her; brush her off; would not stop; and would not leave her alone." Id. ¶ 34. In or about October 2017, Plaintiff attempted to improve her situation by applying and interviewing for a Sales Agent position, which she believed would take her out of the office and away from Maddox. Id. ¶¶ 45-46. Edge hired her for the position and she began training and seeking licensing, with Edge purportedly promising to pay for her expenses. Id. ¶ 47-50. But Maddox's alleged misconduct "continued and worsened," id. ¶ 36, and when Plaintiff reported her discomfort, Edge "took retaliatory action against her" by altering her employment terms and conditions and ultimately terminating her on or about December 15, 2017, id. ¶ 43, 44, 52, 57. Plaintiff also alleges that prior to her joining the company, Edge knew of prior incidents involvingMaddox and other female employees and that his "behaviors had resulted in other women being harmed and injured including in the work place." Id. ¶ 26.
On or about January 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed Charges of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id. ¶ 9. On or about October 30, 2018, the EEOC issued Plaintiff her Notice of Right to Sue. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit on January 25, 2019, and pled seven causes of action. She alleges that Edge: violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq., based on sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and discriminatory retaliation theories (Count I), committed civil assault (Count II), committed civil battery (Count III), breached contracts between them under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV), and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII). Against Maddox personally, Plaintiff asserts claims for civil assault (Count II), civil battery (Count III), negligence (Count V), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count VI), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII).
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants argued in their first motion that Plaintiff's state law claims against both Edge and Maddox are preempted by the Utah Worker's Compensation Act ("UWCA"), that the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff's state law claims against both Edge and Maddox, and that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead her breach of contract, civil assault, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Edge. See ECF No. 27.1 Subsequently, Defendants filed a "supplemental motion to dismiss" to add a newargument that all of Plaintiff's claims against Edge are also preempted by the Utah Antidiscrimination Act ("UADA"). See ECF No. 38. Plaintiff responded that her state law claims are not preempted by the UWCA or the UADA, that they are adequately pled, and that they form the same case or controversy as her Title VII claims to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See ECF Nos. 32, 38.2 For the following reasons, the court dismisses with prejudice all of Plaintiff's state law claims against Edge and dismisses with prejudice only the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Maddox.
In reviewing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the court must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Jordan-Arapahoe, LLP v. Bd. of County Comm's of Cty. of Arapahoe, 633 F.3d 1022, 1025 (10th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff's complaintmust contain enough allegations of fact, taken as true, "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the [pleaded] factual content [ ] allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Further, "federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," and "[i]f jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence." U.S. ex rel. Hafter D.O. v. Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., 190 F.3d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Plaintiff must therefore Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
Plaintiff alleges five state law claims against Maddox for civil assault (Count II), civil battery (Count III), negligence (Count V), negligent...
To continue reading
Request your trial