Coleman v. Kettler Mgmt.
| Decision Date | 21 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:22-cv-84 (RDA/JFA) |
| Parties | ARTEMYS L. COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. KETTLER MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Artemys Coleman (“Plaintiff”). Dkt 6. This Court has dispensed with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Loc Civ. R. 7(J). This matter has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition. Having considered the Motion together with Defendant's Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 7) Plaintiff's Opposition (Dkt. 13), and Defendants' Reply (Dkt. 20), this Court grants the Motion in part and denies it in part for the following reasons.
Plaintiff Artemys Coleman is an African American woman and Prince George's County, Maryland resident who began working as a marketing specialist for Defendant Kettler Management on October 16, 2019. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 5, 8. Defendant Kettler Management, organized under the laws of Virginia, is a property management company that manages about 79 residential communities. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff was supervised by Defendants Nicholas Meadows, Alma Zamudio, and Nasir Mahmood-each a Kettler Management employee. Id. ¶ 11. She also reported to Defendants Heather Parnell and Jesika Evans. Id. ¶ 12. In her Complaint, Plaintiff describes that she suffers from a “serious immune compromised condition,” which places her at a higher risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. ¶ 13.
At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Defendant Kettler Management on March 16, 2020 sent Plaintiff a “Pandemic Absentee Preparation Employee Survey,” which asked if she would be unable to come to work during the pandemic for any of several listed reasons, including health risks that might result from contracting the virus. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff answered yes. Id. ¶ 16. On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff told her supervisors about her health concerns and presented medical documentation to qualify her for accommodations to work from home. Id. ¶ 17. Two days later, Plaintiff's doctor completed and faxed to Kettler Management a “Health Care Provider Questionnaire,” which the company needed to “explore all available options” regarding Plaintiff's limitations. Id. ¶¶ 19-22. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff asked Defendant Parnell for an extension of her work-from-home status, given that the pandemic had not subsided, but Parnell responded by saying Plaintiff would need “more than just a doctor's note.” Id. ¶¶ 23-24.
Plaintiff resubmitted the “Health Care Provider Questionnaire,” which was completed by by her doctor, to Defendant Parnell on May 27, 2020. Id. ¶ 26. In response to a question asking whether Plaintiff's health impairment affected “major life activities,” Plaintiff's doctor answered “Yes.” Id. ¶ 27. And in response to a question asking specifically which life activities were affected, Plaintiff's doctor responded, “When her conditions get worse.” Id. Plaintiff's doctor also indicated that Plaintiff needed to work from home and could still perform all essential job functions if she did so. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges that Kettler Management refused to process and approve this questionnaire. Id. ¶ 32.
On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff produced a doctor's note, which stated she could not attend work between July 2 and July 14, 2020. Id. ¶ 34. On July 21, 2020, Defendant Meadows in a written warning told Plaintiff that “there is no working from home.” Id. ¶ 36. Eventually, on August 10, 2020, Defendants required Plaintiff to return to the office, stating that the essential functions of her position required her to work in person. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. Plaintiff alleges that she returned to the office against her doctor's orders to continue working from home. Id. ¶ 41.
While Plaintiff was working from home, a colleague of hers-identified as “Ivan” in the Complaint-allegedly began claiming credit for the leases Plaintiff was securing for the company. Id. ¶ 18. On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Defendant Evans and complained of favoritism, unfairness, and a stressful work environment. Id. ¶¶ 44-45. She asked to be transferred and, fearing reprisal from company management for her complaint, asked that her request remain private. Id. ¶ 45. After Plaintiff and Evans spoke, Defendants Meadows and Mahmood asked Plaintiff to explain what had been bothering her. Plaintiff alleges that she restated her concerns of favoritism and complained that Ivan had been “stealing the leases she secured through self-guided tours” while she worked from home. Id. ¶ 49. Defendants Meadows and Mahmood told Plaintiff that in the future “everyone will be treated equally” and assured Plaintiff they would instruct Ivan to turn over Plaintiff's leases. Id. ¶ 50.
At some point afterward, an African American resident in a property managed by Kettler Management complained of another leasing agent's racist conduct. Id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Meadows responded to this complaint by moving the leasing agent to the back of the office while reassigning Plaintiff to that leasing agent's former desk. Id. ¶ 52. According to Plaintiff, her desk transfer was the product of racial profiling, and she was moved so the company might avoid receiving further complaints of racism from residents. Id. ¶¶ 53, 58-59. On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff again emailed Defendant Evans and requested a transfer, stating that she felt targeted by upper management's decision to move her desk. Id. ¶ 54. Plaintiff first spoke with Defendant Evans and then met with Defendants Meadows and Zamudio. Id. ¶¶ 56-57.
On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted and harassed at her workplace by Defendant George Bolo, a contract employee with Kettler Management. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. The Complaint alleges that Bolo made inappropriate comments, attempted to kiss Plaintiff's hand, grabbed Plaintiff's waist, and forcefully thrust himself several times on her backside. Id. ¶¶ 6264. When Plaintiff later asked for his email address, Defendant Bolo allegedly replied, “Why do you need my email, so you can send me some naked pictures of you in your sexy panties?” Id. ¶ 68. Later that same day, Plaintiff wrote Defendant Bolo a letter explaining that she would not tolerate sexual assault. Id. ¶ 71. She emailed this letter to Defendant Bolo and hand-delivered a copy to Defendant Mahmood, who she also informed of the sexual assault and harassment. Id. ¶¶ 72-73. The next day, Defendant Mahmood told Plaintiff he had reported this information to Defendant Meadows. Id. ¶ 82.
Several hours after receiving Plaintiff's letter, Defendant Bolo replied to Plaintiff by email, apologizing and acknowledging the assault and harassment. Id. ¶ 77. Plaintiff responded by saying, “No hard feelings.” Id. ¶ 78. Less than a week later, on February 10, 2021, Kettler Management terminated Plaintiff's employment. According to Plaintiff, the company claimed that the language she used in her email to Defendant Bolo was “threatening.” Id. ¶ 84.
Plaintiff then filed a filed a Charge of Discrimination against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On October 28, 2021, the EEOC issued a Right to Sue Notice. In the Complaint filed in this Court, Plaintiff brings two claims for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); claims of racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and an assault claim against Defendant Bolo. Id. ¶¶ 86-140. She claims that these actions resulted in economic damages, pain and suffering, and other compensatory damages. Id. ¶¶ 141-42. After Plaintiff filed suit in this Court on January 26, 2022, Defendants jointly filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on February 22, 2022. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff then sought, and received, an extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filing her opposition brief on March 30, 2020. Dkt. 13. On April 5, 2022, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their Motion. Dkt. 20.
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court considers the sufficiency of a complaint. Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 2011). “[T]he reviewing court must determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[,]'” and dismissal is appropriate only if the well-pleaded facts in the complaint “state a claim that is plausible on its face.'” Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 791 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 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).
At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a plaintiff need only “allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of her claim,” Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003), and “the district court must ‘accept as true all well-pled facts in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff].'” Dao v. Faustin, 402 F.Supp.3d 308, 315 (E.D. Va. 2019) (quoting United States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 632 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015)). Still, “[c]onclusory allegations regarding the legal effect of the facts alleged” need not be accepted. Labram v. Havel, 43 F.3d 918, 921 (4th Cir. 1995); see also E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial