Haire v. Farm & Fleet of Rice Lake, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-10967 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
| Parties | STACEY HAIRE, Plaintiff, v. FARM & FLEET OF RICE LAKE, INC. d/b/a BLAIN'S FARM & FLEET OF JACKSON, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant. |
This is an employment discrimination case arising out of Plaintiff Stacey Haire's employment with Defendant Farm and Fleet of Rice Lake, Inc., d/b/a Blain's Farm & Fleet of Jackson. Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for sexual harassment and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. Now before the Court is Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 8), which has been fully briefed. The Court does not believe that oral argument will aid in its disposition of the motion therefore, it is dispensing with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendant's partial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
For the purposes of ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court takes the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff Stacey Haire began working for Defendant Blain's Farm & Fleet of Jackson on or about September 19, 2018, as a Sales Associate in the Candy Department. (ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 11-12.) As a Sales Associate, Plaintiff was primarily responsible for stocking shelves, setting prices, providing customer service, maintaining merchandise displays, cleaning retail areas, product inventory, moving excess items and empty pallets to the warehouse, and breaking down cartons. (Id. ¶ 13.)
All employees in the Candy Department, including Plaintiff, were supervised by one of Defendant's four Assistant Store Managers (ASMs). (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was initially supervised by an ASM with the initials “AL.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Defendant delegated to AL the authority to direct Sales Associates like Plaintiff in their employment, to evaluate their performance, initiate and impose disciplinary action, and otherwise substantially affect the terms and conditions of their employment. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Plaintiff was also directed in her day-to-day work activities within the Candy Department by a Department Head with the initials “KG.” (Id. ¶ 17.) KG reported directly to the ASM, AL. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff describes KG as “extremely nosey, self-centered and manipulative.” (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff states that KG “seems to believe that his status as Department Head entitled him to exercise supervisory authority over Sales Associates like Plaintiff, ” and that “he acts on that belief by assigning daily tasks in a manner that enables him to bully and/or punish Sales Associates at his will, and avoid his own work responsibilities.” (Id. ¶ 20.)
Plaintiff alleges that, starting in early November 2018, KG started making sexually inappropriate comments to Plaintiff, and also became inappropriately personal and familiar with her. (Compl. ¶ 21.) For example, when Plaintiff got her hair cut, KG commented that Plaintiff did something with her hair, and Plaintiff acknowledged that she got a “trim.” (Id. ¶ 22.) KG responded that he “would not mind getting some trim, too, ” injecting sexual inuendo into the conversation. (Id.)
Plaintiff asserts that her negative reaction to KG's comment seemed to motivate him to become more aggressive with his improper comments and behavior toward her, including contriving opportunities to invade her personal space and touch her body. (Id. ¶ 23.) For example, KG frequently positioned himself to be standing behind Plaintiff when she was working so he could stare at her buttocks, and he repeatedly came up from behind her, under the guise that he was concerned that her walkie-talkie looked like it might fall from her belt holster, as an excuse to touch Plaintiff in her waist and buttocks area. (Id. ¶ 24.)
In mid-to-late November, Plaintiff had a 60-day evaluation with AL. (Compl. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff reported to AL that she was uncomfortable with the manner in which KG was interacting with her, and she specifically discussed the “trim” comment, that KG stared at her from behind, and KG's “walkie-talkie move” to touch her buttocks. (Id. ¶ 26.) AL responded that he was sorry for KG's behavior and that “he would look into it.” (Id. ¶ 27.)
Plaintiff asserts that KG's behavior did not improve following her report to AL, because he continued to stare at her from behind and invade her personal space and touch her. (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30.) Plaintiff further alleged that KG started to tease and bully her. (Id.) For example, when she was in the Defendant's warehouse and climbing a ladder to stock or remove inventory from a shelf, KG would stand at the bottom of the ladder and shake it, saying things like “you better be careful up there little girl, ” or “are you scared up here, girly?” (Id. ¶ 29.)
In early to mid-December, Defendant's management was reorganized. AL became the acting Store Manager, and an ASM with the initials “JW” was assigned responsibility for supervising KG and Plaintiff in the Candy Department. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff asserts that she complained about KG's behavior to JW “multiple times, ” but that no remedial action resulted. (Id. ¶ 32.)
In early January 2019, Plaintiff reported her concerns about KG to a female ASM with the initials “SW.” (Compl. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff states that because SW was a woman, Plaintiff thought she would be “more in-tune with Plaintiff's objections to KG's behavior.” (Id. ¶ 34.) However, no remedial action resulted from this first report to SW. (Id. ¶ 36.)
Plaintiff alleges that, by January 2019, KG had developed a friendship with the supervising ASM of the Candy Department, JW, and that KG thus felt confident that he could do and get away with anything he wanted. (Compl. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff claims that KG started making offensive comments to Plaintiff about one of their co-workers (a friend of Plaintiff's) and his sexual orientation, stating that several people thought the co-worker was gay. (Id. ¶¶ 38-39.) KG also discussed with Plaintiff his purchase of undergarments for his girlfriend from Victoria's Secret, and commented about how the undergarments would fit Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 40.) Plaintiff states that she told KG she “did not appreciate” this discussion about undergarments, and that KG just laughed in response. (Id. ¶ 41.)
In late January 2019, Plaintiff had a second meeting with SW and reported her objections to the way KG spoke to and interacted with her. (Compl. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff states that she complained that KG was spreading gossip about her co-worker's sexual orientation, about KG's comments regarding the Victoria Secret undergarments, that KG stared at her buttocks and touched her inappropriately, and that she had reported most of that conduct to AL at her 60-day evaluation but that nothing had been done about it. (Id. ¶ 43.) SW told Plaintiff that she would look into these complaints, but again nothing was done about KG's behavior. (Id. ¶ 44.)
KG's behavior continued. (Compl. ¶ 45.) KG discussed his strong opinions about transgender issues, which Plaintiff found offensive and irrelevant to Defendant's business interests. (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.) Plaintiff complained to SW about KG's comments and behavior a third time in March 2019. (Id. ¶ 48.) SW listened and appeared sympathetic, but KG's comments and behavior nevertheless continued. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that, by this time, KG was aware that Plaintiff was complaining about his behavior and he developed an animus toward her. (Id. ¶ 49.) He would bombard her with assignments to perform various tasks during the work day and would leave multiple notes for her, which was far more work than she could possibly complete in the time that she was scheduled to work. (Id. ¶ 50.)
Because Defendant's store management had failed to take any remedial action against KG in response to Plaintiff's multiple complaints, she next contacted Defendant's corporate human resources department and related all the issues she had reported to AL, JW, and SW. (Compl. ¶ 51.) The human resources employee said he was concerned and sympathetic but, again, no remedial action was taken by Defendant regarding KG. (Id. ¶ 52.)
Plaintiff claims that she went as far as threatening to quit when discussing her concerns with SW and the human resources employee, but they repeatedly asked her not to, and to give the company a chance to rectify the situation. (Id. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff also asked to be transferred to a different department, and the ASMs, “SW and PW, ” said she could transfer “as soon as they could create an opening in the Seasonal Department, but the transfer never happened.” (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiff alleges that KG's conduct made her feel trapped and dread going to work, and that coworkers referred to Plaintiff as being KG's “bitch.” (Id. ¶¶ 55-57.) Plaintiff asserts that she had no other employment opportunities close to home that she was qualified for, and she became increasingly anxious, despondent, and depressed. (Id. ¶¶ 58-59.)
On or about April 3, 2019, as Plaintiff was preparing to go to work, she experienced a serious mental health episode that required her immediate hospitalization. (Compl. ¶ 60.) Plaintiff states that she has a history of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),...
To continue reading
Request your trial