Burgess v. Cahall
| Decision Date | 29 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 99-217-JJF.,Civ.A. 99-217-JJF. |
| Citation | 88 F.Supp.2d 319 |
| Parties | Susan M. BURGESS, Plaintiff, v. Thomas H. CAHALL, Jr. and The Chesapeake Employment Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
John X. Denney, Jr., Tomar, Simonoff, Adourian, O'Brien, Kaplan, Jacoby & Graziano, Wilmington, DE, of counsel Stephen B. Lebau, Lebau & Neuworth, LLC, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.
Roy S. Shiels, Brown, Shiels, Beauregard & Chasanov, Dover, DE, for Defendants.
Carl Schnee, United States Attorney, David W. Ogden, Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Gibson-Mason, Assistant United States Attorney, John R. Tyler, Melissa Hart, Office of the United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE, for the United States.
Presently before the Court is a Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (D.I.6) filed by Defendants, Thomas H. Cahall, Jr., and The Chesapeake Employment Corporation. By her Complaint, Plaintiff Susan M. Burgess raises one federal cause of action against Defendants, specifically a claim under the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13981, et seq. The remaining causes of action raised by Plaintiff are claims under state law, including claims for battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is based solely on the ground that the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants alleging numerous state law claims and one federal claim under Section 13981(c) as a result of alleged incidents occurring during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, The Chesapeake Employment Corporation ("Chesapeake"). From April 11, 1999 to April 21, 1999, Plaintiff was employed by Chesapeake. (Cmplt. at 4-27). At the time of her employment, Defendant Thomas H. Cahall headed the company. Defendant Cahall recruited, interviewed and hired Plaintiff. Defendant Cahall was Plaintiff's administrative superior and supervisor during her employment. (Cmplt.4-12).
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cahall committed numerous sexual assaults on Plaintiff, unlawfully imprisoned her and exposed her to the risk of serious physical injury. (Cmplt. at 9-17, 25). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Cahall's crimes were motivated, at least in part, by an animus based on Plaintiff's gender. (Cmplt. at 26). Plaintiff also contends that other females have complained of sexual assaults and harassment by Defendant Cahall, thus supporting Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant Cahall's actions were gender-based. (Cmplt. at 20-22).
Shortly after the start of a criminal trial related to Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant Cahall pled guilty to charges of sexual harassment, offensive touching and third-degree unlawful sexual contact in the Court of Common Pleas of Kent County, Delaware. The court sentenced Defendant Cahall to serve a 30-day suspended sentence and pay fines and court costs totaling $754.50. (D.I. 12 at Ex. 1).
In lieu of filing an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants filed the instant Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although Defendants state in their Motion that they contest the majority of the allegations raised by Plaintiff's Complaint, they concede for purposes of their Motion that the Court must accept as true the facts by Plaintiff in her Complaint.
By their Motion To Dismiss, Defendants challenge the constitutionality of the VAWA. Specifically, Defendants contend that the creation of a private cause of action by the VAWA is not a valid exercise of Congress' power under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment. In order to defend the constitutionality of the VAWA, the United States moved to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2803. (D.I.13). The Court granted the United States' motion to intervene, and the United States filed a Memorandum Of Law In Support Of The Constitutionality Of The Civil Rights Provision Of The Violence Against Women Act Of 1994 And In Response To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss (D.I.15). Since the completion of briefing on Defendants' Motion, the United States, Plaintiff and Defendants have filed notices of recent authority in support of their respective positions. (D.I.32, 34).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve disputed facts or decide the merits of the case. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir.1993). When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Piecknick v. Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255 (3d Cir. 1994). The Court is "not required to accept legal conclusions either alleged or inferred from the pleaded facts." Kost, 1 F.3d at 183. Dismissal is only appropriate when "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
The Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") recognizes that "all persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender." 42 U.S.C. § 13981(b). To help protect and preserve this right, Section 13981(c) of the VAWA creates a private right of action in federal court for victims of gender violence. In pertinent part Section 13981(c) provides:
A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender and thus deprives another of the right declared in subsection (b) of this section shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.
42 U.S.C. § 13981(c). In enacting the VAWA, Congress expressly relied upon its power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause. 42 U.S.C. § 13981(a).
The overwhelming majority of courts who have addressed the constitutionality of the VAWA have concluded that the VAWA is a valid and constitutional exercise of Congress' power. See United States v. Page, 167 F.3d 325 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc); United States v. Wright, 128 F.3d 1274 (8th Cir.1997); Williams v. Board of County Commissioners, 1999 WL 690101 (D.Kan. Aug.24, 1999); Kuhn v. Kuhn, 1999 WL 519326 (N.D.Ill. July 15, 1999); Ericson v. Syracuse Univ., 45 F.Supp.2d 344 (S.D.N.Y.1999); Doe v. Mercer, 37 F.Supp.2d 64, 66 (D.Mass.1999); Liu v. Striuli, 36 F.Supp.2d 452 (D.R.I.1999); Mattison v. Click Corp. of America, Inc., 1998 WL 32597, *6 (E.D.Pa. Jan.27, 1998); Ziegler v. Ziegler, 28 F.Supp.2d 601, 607-617 (E.D.Wash.1998); Doe v. Hartz, 970 F.Supp. 1375, 1423 (N.D.Iowa 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 134 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir. 1998); Anisimov v. Lake, 982 F.Supp. 531, 540 (N.D.Ill.1997); Seaton v. Seaton, 971 F.Supp. 1188, 1193 (E.D.Tenn.1997); Crisonino v. New York City Housing Auth., 985 F.Supp. 385, 396-97 (S.D.N.Y.1997); Doe v. Doe, 929 F.Supp. 608, 617 (D.Conn. 1996). But see Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999); Bergeron v. Bergeron, 48 F.Supp.2d 628 (M.D.La.1999). This Court is persuaded by the rationale espoused by the majority of courts addressing the VAWA. Accordingly, the Court joins the majority in upholding the constitutionality of the VAWA.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the task of adjudicating the constitutionality of an Act of Congress as "the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform." Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 148, 48 S.Ct. 105, 72 L.Ed. 206 (1927) (Holmes, J.). With due regard for Congress' status as a coequal branch of government whose members are democratically elected by the citizens of the United States, the Supreme Court requires federal courts to afford "great weight to the decisions of Congress." Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102, 93 S.Ct. 2080, 36 L.Ed.2d 772 (1973). This deferential approach to statutory review is particularly appropriate in cases challenging Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. Williams v. Board of County Commissioners, 1999 WL 690101 at *1. In such cases, the court's review is limited to (1) a determination of whether a rational basis exists for concluding that the regulated activity sufficiently affects interstate commerce; and (2) if a rational basis exists, whether the means chosen by Congress are "reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution." Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. and Reclamation Ass'n. Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276 (1981).
After reviewing the extent of the Congressional findings concerning the impact of gender-motivated violence on the national economy and interstate commerce, the Court concludes that there is a rational basis for Congress' conclusion that gender-motivated violence substantially affects interstate commerce. Congress embarked on a four-year course of study and hearings concerning domestic and other gender-motivated violence before enacting the VAWA, and the Congressional record is replete with findings illustrating the impact of domestic and gender-based violence on interstate commerce. Recognizing the vast numbers...
To continue reading
Request your trial