Chapman-Robbins v. Tenn. Dep't of Transp.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:19-cv-01128,3:19-cv-01128 |
| Parties | LAVONE CHAPMAN-ROBBINS, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 20, "Motion"), supported by a Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 21, "Defendant's Memorandum"). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 23), and Defendant filed a reply (Doc. No. 24).
This action was filed by Plaintiff against her employer, the Tennessee Department of Transportation ("TDOT"), alleging harassment and retaliation in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA"). Plaintiff has also alleged the state-law torts of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff began work for TDOT in its Franklin, Tennessee shop on October 28, 2018, as an operations technician. Almost immediately after starting work at TDOT, Plaintiff began to receivegraphic and explicit text messages from a co-worker, Marty Dillon. These text messages contained disturbing images and texts that Plaintiff experienced as sexual harassment. Dillon also physically assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff and another female employee complained about Dillon's behavior, and TDOT investigated. TDOT transferred Dillon from the Franklin shop to a TDOT location in Nashville, but even after Dillon's transfer, TDOT assigned Plaintiff to training where Dillon was present. After Dillon's transfer, one of her supervisors harassed Plaintiff for causing him to lose "one of his best guys." Eventually, TDOT fired Dillon and reported to Plaintiff that it had found that Dillon violated TDOT policy. After he was fired, Dillon sent threatening texts to Plaintiff, which she reported to TDOT, but TDOT took no action. As of the time the First Amended Complaint was filed, Dillon was continuing to come by the Franklin TDOT location at times to speak to supervisors and employees. Plaintiff filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge about this harassment and retaliation on January 31, 2019, after which she experienced further retaliation in the form of less-favorable job assignments and cessation of assignment to group or team tasks.
The First Amended Complaint asserts the following:
Count I - violation of Title IX
Count II - violation of the THRA (sexual harassment)
Count III - violation of the THRA (retaliation)
Count IV - common law assault and battery
Count V - intentional infliction of emotional distress
Count VI - violation of Title VII (sexual harassment)
Count VII - violation of Title VII (retaliation) Via the Motion, TDOT asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's THRA and intentional tort claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based upon sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; to dismiss Plaintiff's Title IX claim because Plaintiff is not protected by Title IX in this instance or, alternatively, because she cannot establish the elements of a Title IX sex discrimination/harassment claim; and to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII hostile work environment claim because TDOT responded appropriately to Plaintiff's complaint.
For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950. A legal conclusion, including one couched as a factual allegation, need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss, nor are mere recitations of the elements of a cause of action sufficient. Id.; Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010), cited in Abriq v. Hall, 295 F. Supp. 3d 874, 877 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). Moreover, factual allegations that are merely consistent with the defendant's liability do not satisfy the claimant's burden, as mere consistency does not establish plausibility of entitlement to relief even if it supports the possibility of relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In determining whether a complaint is sufficient under the standards of Iqbal and its predecessor and complementary case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), it may be appropriate to "begin [the] analysis by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. This can be crucial, as no such allegations count toward the plaintiff's goal of reaching plausibility of relief. To reiterate, such allegations include "bare assertions," formulaic recitation of the elements, and "conclusory" or "bald" allegations. Id. at 681. The question is whether the remaining allegations - factual allegations, i.e., allegations of factual matter - plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Id. If not, the pleading fails to meet the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and thus must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 683.
As a general rule, matters outside the pleadings may not be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) unless the motion is converted to one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). When a document is referred to in the pleadings and is integral to the claims, it may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 219 F.Supp.3d 645, 652-53 (S.D. Ohio 2016); Blanch v. Trans Union, LLC, 333 F. Supp. 3d 789, 791-92 (M.D. Tenn. 2018).
To support a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "[t]he moving party has the burden of proving that no claim exists." Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 433 (6th Cir. 2008). That is not to say that the movant has some evidentiary burden; as should be clear from the discussion above, evidence (as opposed to allegations as construed in light of any allowable matters outside the pleadings) is not involved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The movant's burden, rather, is a burden of explanation; since the movant is the one seeking dismissal, it is the one that bears the burden of explaining—with whatever degree ofthoroughness is required under the circumstances—why dismissal is appropriate for failure to state a claim.
In response to the Motion, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss her state-law intentional tort claims. She argues, however, that her THRA claim should remain. (Doc. No. 23). TDOT argues the THRA claim must be dismissed based upon sovereign immunity.
Although the Tennessee Legislature has waived its immunity to THRA suits in Tennessee courts, it has not done so for suits in federal courts. Hemenway v. 16th Judicial Dist. Attorney's Office, No. 3:15-cv-00997, 2020 WL 6364486, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 29, 2020). Federal courts in Tennessee have consistently held that suits against state entities brought by individuals under the THRA in federal court are disallowed by the Eleventh Amendment. Miller v. Tennessee Dep't of Human Servs., No. 3-15-1025, 2016 WL 3213641, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2016); Banerjee v. Univ. of Tenn., No. 3:17-cv-526, 2019 WL 7283128, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2019).
Plaintiff argues that where, as here, there are valid federal claims establishing jurisdiction, this Court has the power to hear pendent (supplemental) state law claims. That may be true in general, but this case involves a THRA claim against a state entity covered by the Eleventh Amendment. Nothing about the 2014 Tennessee legislation cited by Plaintiff changes the holdings of the above-cited cases, all of which were entered after 2014. Any alleged "preference" for federal jurisdiction in cases based on "a common nucleus of operative facts" cannot overcome the well-established doctrine of sovereign immunity. Supplemental jurisdiction cannot override Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case; supplemental jurisdiction can be a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over state claims, but even with subject-matter jurisdiction, a court's authority to heara claim is always subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.2 See, e.g., Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1046 (6th Cir. 2015) (); Watson v. Texas, 261 F.3d 436, 440 n.5 (5th Cir. 2001) (). And such immunity exits here. As this Court has put it, "Federal courts have repeatedly and consistently held that the state and its agencies are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in federal court under the THRA and the state has not waived such immunity." Ritenour v. Tenn. Dep't of Human Servs., No. 3:09-0803, 2009 WL 10664196, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 6, 2009). Perhaps a more precise way to put it is what is seen in cases like Boinapally v. Univ. of Tenn., 23 F. App'x 512, 515 (6th Cir. 2001): courts recognize state agencies to be immune from suit in federal court and recognize no waiver by the state of such immunity with respect to claims under the THRA.
Accordi...
To continue reading
Request your trial