Clayton v. Dreamstyle Remodeling of Colo., LLC
| Decision Date | 07 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-cv-02096-KMT |
| Parties | AMANDA CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. DREAMSTYLE REMODELING OF COLORADO, LLC, DREAMSTYLE REMODELING, INC., and PAUL WATKINS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Before the court is “Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss.” ([“Motion”], Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the Motion, and Defendants have replied. ([“Response”], Doc. No 25; [“Reply”], Doc. No. 26.) For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
Plaintiff Amanda Clayton [“Ms. Clayton”] brings this lawsuit against her former joint employers-Defendants Dreamstyle Remodeling of Colorado, LLC, Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc. [collectively, “Dreamstyle”]; and Paul Watkins [“Mr. Watkins”]-alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended [“Title VII”], 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq., the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act [“CADA”], Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-34-402 et. seq., as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. ([“Amended Complaint”], Doc. No. 15.) Ms. Clayton reportedly worked for Dreamstyle, as a Sales Representative, for a period of five and a half months, from March 19, 2019, until September 4, 2019. .) According to the Amended Complaint, “almost immediately” after Ms. Clayton was hired, she was subjected to “inappropriate, ” “offensive, ” and “unwelcome” sexual conduct by Dreamstyle's General Manager, Mr. Watkins. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 10, 22, 25, 33, 38.) Throughout Ms. Clayton's employment with Dreamstyle, Mr. Watkins reportedly “held a position of power, control, and authority over [her] in the workplace as [her] supervisor.” (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in March 2019, Defendant Watkins “repeatedly showed [her] and other new employees provocative and sexually suggestive photographs of women, informing them of his pastime of photographing women.” (Id. at ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Watkins would thereafter “routinely bring up or mention his desire to photograph women, seemingly suggesting to [her] and other women that he was looking for them to serve as his photographic models.” (Id. at ¶ 23.) Ms. Clayton complains that, in April 2019, when she requested “feedback” from Mr. Watkins “regarding information from a sale, ” Mr. Watkins, “in a suggestive tone, ” told Ms. Clayton that he “would have to spank [her] butt, ” because “she had incorrectly entered the information.” (Id. at ¶ 27.) Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor's comment amounted to a “sexualized threat.” (Id. at ¶ 28.)
The Amended Complaint states that, following these two incidents, Plaintiff “complained of Watkins' discrimination and harassment against [her] to the Sales Manager who reported to Watkins, Sarah Pearse.” (Id. at ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that, notwithstanding her complaint, “no corrective action was taken.” (Id.) Ms. Clayton is adamant that, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, “Dreamstyle knew or should have known of Watkins' offensive conduct, ” and she claims that, during her employment, “other female employees under Watkins” made similar complaints to Dreamstyle regarding his inappropriate behavior. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39.)
According to the Amended Complaint, in May 2019, around 9:00 PM on an unspecified date, Mr. Watkins called Ms. Clayton at her home, “under the guise of seeking a restaurant recommendation in Colorado Springs.” (Id. at ¶ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that the ensuing telephone conversation “soon turned into an examination by Watkins, for approximately 90 minutes, of very personal issues, ” including probes into her “relationship with her husband, her family, her age, and her ethnicity.” (Id.) Ms. Clayton recounts that she “was in shock for just how inappropriate Watkins' questions and statements were and tried to politely end the interrogation, but to no effect.” (Id.) Plaintiff insists that she “simply could not hang up the phone, ” given that “it was her General Manager on the other line.” (Id.)
Shortly after the telephone incident, Defendant Watkins reportedly “began treating Plaintiff unfavorably, ” as revenge for “Plaintiff's rebuffs against [him] and/or her prior complaint to Sarah Pearse.” (Id. at ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges, specifically, that Defendant Watkins retaliated against her by, among other things, “assigning her to appointments previously agreed upon to be too far to reasonably drive;” “direct[ing] sales opportunities away from [her], and instead g[iving] her leads that were not promising or outside of her territory or both;” and “humiliat[ing] and demean[ing]” her in front of coworkers during a staff meeting. (Id. at ¶¶ 35, 37-38.)
On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff reportedly sent an email to Dreamstyle's President, Larry Chavez [“Mr. Chavez”], in which she “complain[ed]” of Defendant Watkins' “ongoing harassment and retaliatory behaviors.” (Id. at ¶ 40.) Mr. Chavez and his Vice President of Operations, Andrew MacGillivray [“Mr. MacGillivray”], apparently responded to Ms. Clayton's email that same day, “reassuring her that they w[ould] begin an immediate investigation and arrange a time for [her] and MacGillivray to speak.” (Id. at ¶ 41.)
In her operative pleading, Plaintiff alleges that, on August 27, 2019, she was placed on unpaid administrative leave, pending an “investigat[ion]” by Dreamstyle into “the situation.” (Id. at ¶ 42.) Ms. Clayton complains that she was offered “[n]o other option, work environment, manager, or other action” by her employer, despite the fact that she “could at all times continue to perform her job” away from the office, given the nature of her duties. (Id.)
According to the Amended Complaint, unbeknownst to Ms. Clayton, on August 28, 2019 or thereabouts, Mr. Watkins “instructed” his new Sales Manager, Alexandra Vinet, “to terminate” Ms. Clayton. (Id. at ¶ 43.) “When Ms. Vinet questioned why, ” Mr. Watkins reportedly “became very upset with her and, at that time, did not say anything.” (Id. at ¶ 44.) The following day, however, Mr. Watkins “informed Ms. Vinet” that Ms. Clayton “had filed a sexual harassment claim against him.” (Id. at ¶ 45.) Defendant Watkins is alleged to have then instructed Ms. Vinet “to draft a letter on his behalf fabricating unsatisfactory performance by Plaintiff, as a basis for her termination.” (Id.) Ms. Vinet reportedly refused to do so, and was subsequently retaliated against by Mr. Watkins. (Id. at ¶ 46.)
According to the Amended Complaint, on September 4, 2019, Ms. Clayton sent an email to Mr. MacGillivray, in which she “expressed her frustration and uncertainty with how to move forward.”[1] (Id. at ¶ 48.) One day later, on September 5, 2019, Mr. MacGillivray responded to Ms. Clayton's email, confirming that the “investigation” into Ms. Clayton's complaints remained “ongoing, ” and stating that Ms. Clayton “would be welcomed back to active selling status, ” though apparently offering “no direction, idea, or support for how [Ms. Clayton] could comfortably and safely return to work with Watkins or be protected from future harassment and discrimination.” (Id. at ¶ 49.) According to Plaintiff, “the only reassurance offered” by Mr. MacGillivray was that “corrective action w[ould] be taken to address any verifiable occurrences of harassment.” (Id.)
According to the Amended Complaint, following “almost four weeks of silence from Dreamstyle, ” on or about October 3, 2019, Ms. Clayton sent another email to Mr. Chavez and Mr. MacGillivray, “expressing disappointment in Dreamstyle's protections of Watkins and stating the financial and emotional impact she was suffering as a result of taking necessary leave to prevent further harassment and retaliation.” (Id. at ¶ 50.) Mr. MacGillivray, in his response email, is said to have, “yet again, reiterate[d] to Plaintiff that she would be welcomed back, ” though “offering no reassurance that the discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory environment would be different.” (Id. at ¶ 51.) In that same email, Mr. MacGillivray reportedly made clear that Dreamstyle construed Ms. Clayton's current leave of absence to be “entirely voluntary.” (Id.) After receiving Mr. MacGillivray's email, Ms. Clayton apparently did not ever return to work at Dreamstyle. Plaintiff claims to have been constructively terminated by her employer, on September 4, 2019. (CCRD Charge 2; see Am. Compl. ¶ 98.)
Plaintiff now alleges that, notwithstanding their assertions to the contrary, Defendants “never took any action to investigate” her claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, nor “took [any] action to return [her] to work.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 53-54.) Ms. Clayton further alleges that, throughout her employment with Dreamstyle, Defendants “treated female employees, ” including herself, “very much differently and on unequal terms than they treated male employees.” (Id. at 58-60.) Plaintiff claims to have suffered “severe emotional distress, ” and to have sustained various forms of “economic harm, ” as a result of Defendants' actions. (Id. at ¶¶ 61-63.)
On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division [“CCRD”] and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [“EEOC”], under those agencies' work-sharing agreement. (CCRD Charge 1; see Compl. ¶ 13.) On July 17, 2020, after receiving notice of her right to sue from the CCRD, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. No. 1; Am. Compl. ¶ 13.)
In her Amended Complaint, Ms. Clayton asserts the following claims for relief: (1) Title VII sex discrimination against Dreamstyle; (2) Title VII sexual harassment/hostile work environment against Dreamstyle; (3) Title VII...
To continue reading
Request your trial