Johnson v. North Carolina
| Decision Date | 17 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:11–CV–57.,5:11–CV–57. |
| Citation | 905 F.Supp.2d 712 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | Kathryn JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. The State of NORTH CAROLINA and Keith Whitener, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
E. Bedford Cannon, Statesville, NC, for Plaintiff.
Terence D. Friedman, NC Attorney General Office, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant North Carolina's Partial Motion to Dismiss and accompanying Memorandum, filed March 27, 2012, and Defendant Keith Whitener's Motion to Dismiss and accompanying Memorandum, filed May 11, 2012 (Docs. 15, 16, 22 and 23); Plaintiff's Memoranda in Opposition, filed June 25, 2012 (Docs. 30 and 31); and Defendants' Replies to Plaintiff's Responses, filed July 5, 2012 (Docs. 33 and 34). This matter is ripe for disposition.
Plaintiff, Kathryn Johnson, a former employee with the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (hereinafter DPS), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief; liquidated, compensatory, and punitive damages; costs; and attorneys fees from Defendants State of North Carolina and Keith Whitener. Plaintiff's complaint alleges (a) retaliation for filing two complaints with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC), (b) the creation of a hostile work environment, (c) wrongful termination, and (d) breach of contact.
Plaintiff bases her claims upon (a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (b) the Fair Labor Standards Act, (c) the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, (d) the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act, (e) the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act, and (f) the common law of North Carolina.
The facts, as recited in the complaint, are as follows. In October 2007, Plaintiff entered into an employment contract to serve as a correctional officer with DPS. (Doc. 1 at p. 2). Plaintiff was originally assigned to work at the Alexander Correctional Institution in Alexander County, North Carolina, where Defendant Whitener worked as a supervisor. (Doc. 1 at p. 2).
On or about October 12, 2009, Plaintiff received “one minor write up,” but otherwise maintained a “good record with Defendant State of North Carolina.” (Doc. 1 at p. 2). Around this time, Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment complaint with DPS against Sergeant Llyod Hames, one of her supervisors at the Alexander Correctional Institution. (Doc. 1 at p. 2; Exhibit 3 at p. 3).1
On or about December 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC (EEOC file number 435–2010–00191) alleging (a) sexual harassment by a supervisor at the Alexander Correctional Institution, (b) the creation of a hostile work environment after filing a complaint (c) retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint, and (d) unwarranted demotion. (Doc. 1 at p. 2).
Plaintiff did not pursue her EEOC claim due to insufficient funds; however, after filing her claim and until her eventual termination on February 3, 2011, Plaintiff alleges a constant “course of action in retaliation” by Defendants State of North Carolina and Whitener. (Doc. 1 at p. 2).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants State of North Carolina and Whitener, without just cause, encouraged Shana Thompson, an employee at the Alexander Correctional Institution, to “make a series of false complaints against the Plaintiff.” (Doc. 1 at p. 3). The first complaint occurred on or about September 27, 2010, when Thompson filed a written complaint with DPS alleging that Plaintiff had cursed at her several times. (Exhibit 3 at p. 2). Plaintiff denied these allegations and provided her own written statement to DPS.2 (Exhibit 3 at p. 2). The second complaint, filed on or about September 28, 2010, alleged that Plaintiff had committed assault and battery against Thompson at the Alexander Correctional Institution on September 28, 2010.3 (Doc. 1 at p. 3).
Plaintiff further alleges that other unnamed personnel employed by the State of North Carolina encouraged Thompson to initiate civil proceedings against Plaintiff regarding the alleged September 28 assault and battery. 4 (Doc. 1 at p. 3). Thompson filed a Complaint for a No–Contact Order on September 29, 2010, with the Alexander County District Court, and the Court issued a Temporary No–Contact Order, which prohibited Plaintiff from having any contact with Thompson, including at work. (Doc. 1 at p. 3; Exhibit 2).
Shortly thereafter, on or about October 1, 2010, Defendant Whitener called Plaintiff into his office. (Exhibit 3 at p. 4). At this time Whitener indicated that he was aware of the alleged assault and battery, Thompson's written statement regarding the incident, and the recently issued restraining order. (Exhibit 3 at p. 4). Whitener informed Plaintiff that he was giving her an administrative reassignment to the Catawba Correctional Institution, a facility that is also run by the State of North Carolina, effective immediately. (Exhibit 3 at p. 4).
As a result of the transfer, Plaintiff began reporting to the Catawba Correctional Institution, located in Catawba County, North Carolina. (Doc. 1 at p. 3). The transfer caused “an increase in daily commuting mileage ... of approximately 30 miles per day,” which resulted in a “considerable increase in the Plaintiff's expenses in traveling to and from work.” (Doc. 1 at p. 3). Plaintiff also alleges that at an unidentified time she was wrongfully demoted, which ultimately lead to a loss in pay, retirement benefits, and medical insurance coverage. (Doc. 1 at p. 4).
At a likewise unidentified time, but prior to January 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second EEOC claim (EEOC file number 430–2011–00756). (Doc. 1 at p. 4). This claim was dismissed for failing to “state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC” on January 24, 2011, and Plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC permitting her to initiate the present case. (Exhibit 1). While Plaintiff references her second EEOC claim in her Complaint, she has not provided the court with a copy of the claim, nor has she described the content of the claim.
On February 3, 2011, approximately three months after her transfer to Catawba Correctional Institution, Plaintiff's employment with DPS was terminated. (Doc. 1 at p. 4). Plaintiff alleges that this termination was carried out wrongfully, without sufficient cause, and in violation of her employment contract. (Doc. 1 at p. 4). Plaintiff further alleges that the termination was in retaliation for filing of EEOC complaints 435–2010–00191 and 430–2011–00756. (Doc. 1 at p. 4). As a result of her termination, Plaintiff was deprived of her “base compensation, medical benefits, and retirement benefits.” (Doc. 1 at p. 4).
Due to the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff initiated this suit with the Western District of North Carolina on April 25, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on March 27, 2012 and May 11, 2012.
Defendants have moved for dismissal of all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Citing North Carolina's invocation of its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, Defendants have also moved for dismissal of Plaintiff's state-law claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2).
Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a claim based upon a plaintiff's “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). In evaluating motions to dismiss, the court must construe the complaint's factual allegations “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff” and “must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations.” Randall v. U.S., 30 F.3d 518, 522 (4th Cir.1994). The court, however, need not “accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts,” nor “accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.2008) (quoting Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir.2000)).
While Rule 8(a)(2) does not require “detailed factual allegations,” a complaint must offer more than “naked assertion[s]” and unadorned “labels and conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the facts alleged must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Requiring plausibility “does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. It does, however, demand more than a “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Ultimately, a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that permits the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) provide for dismissal of claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction, respectively. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), plaintiffs bear the burden of setting forth facts sufficient to demonstrate personal jurisdiction. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59–60 (4th Cir.1993). Plaintiffs, however need only prove a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, with the court drawing all reasonable inferences arising from the proof and resolving all factual disputes in plaintiff's favor. Id.
The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue the court must address before considering the merits of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. Cabarrus Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...Aliksa v. N.C. R.R. Co., No. 1:17CV428, 2018 WL 3466948, at *1 (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2018) ; but see Johnson v. North Carolina, 905 F. Supp. 2d 712, 719 (W.D.N.C. 2012) ("[T]here is authority suggesting that motions to dismiss based upon sovereign immunity may be properly granted pursuant to R......
-
Holbrook v. W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth.
...proving that a court has subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff as he is the party asserting it. Johnson v. N. Carolina, 905 F. Supp. 2d 712, 719 (W.D.N.C. 2012). However, a court should grant dismissal "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the movi......
-
Willis v. Cleveland Cnty.
...not come from the pockets of the named official, but rather from the treasury of the entity that employs him." Johnson v. North Carolina, 905 F. Supp. 2d 712, 721 (W.D.N.C. 2012). As such, Title VII claims brought against employees in their official capacities are redundant and subject to d......
-
Kingsdown, Inc. v. Hinshaw
...employee alleged she had an employment agreement with the corporate defendant, not the individuals); see also Johnson v. North Carolina, 905 F.Supp.2d 712, 726 (W.D. N.C. 2012) ("Pursuant to established North Carolina law, a plaintiff may only bring a wrongful discharge action against the p......