Moody-Williams v. Liposcience

• Decision Date: 18 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 5:12–CV–104–FL.,5:12–CV–104–FL.
• Citation: 953 F.Supp.2d 677
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Tracy MOODY–WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. LIPOSCIENCE, Louvenia Clemons, and Ronald Bess, Defendants.

953 F.Supp.2d 677

Tracy MOODY–WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,

v.LIPOSCIENCE, Louvenia Clemons, and Ronald Bess, Defendants.

No. 5:12–CV–104–FL.

United States District Court,

E.D. North Carolina,

Western Division.

June 18, 2013.

Tracy Moody–Williams, Franklinton, NC, pro se.

Gretchen W. Ewalt, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on memorandum and recommendation (“M & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. (DE 32), recommending this court allow defendants' partial motion to dismiss (DE 13). Plaintiff, appearing pro se, responded to the motion to dismiss and objected to the M & R. Defendants filed a memorandum in support of the M & R, to which plaintiff responded. The issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the followingreasons, the court adopts the M & R and grants defendants' partial motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff originated this employment discrimination lawsuit pro se on February 2, 2012, in Superior Court of Franklin County, North Carolina. LipoScience, Louvenia Clemons, and Ronald Bess (collectively “defendants”) timely filed a notice of removal on March 1, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on plaintiff's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (“GINA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Plaintiff also asserts a claim pursuant to North Carolina tort law for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). On March 13, 2012, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and answered the complaint. On April 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to defendants' answer and two responses to defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 7, 2012, defendants replied in support of their partial motion to dismiss, to which plaintiff filed a surreply on May 18, 2012. By order on May 18, 2012, the court stayed discovery until after the resolution of defendants' pending partial motion to dismiss. On September 6, 2012, plaintiff was allowed to amend her complaint by order. Order was accompanied by the M & R recommending allowance of defendants' partial motion to dismiss which is now before the court. On September 28, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court and for reimbursement of expenses. Subsequently, defendants filed two motions to strike. These three motions were denied by order entered March 26, 2013, 2013 WL 1246752. Therefore, the only matter that remains to be resolved before stay of discovery may be lifted is defendants' partial motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF FACTS¹

The court incorporates by reference the factual background in the M & R, and briefly summarizes those facts as follows. Plaintiff began a temporary employee position at LipoScience, a diagnostic company in Raleigh, North Carolina, on February 10, 2010. Plaintiff obtained her position there as a data control specialist through a temporary employment agency, Innovative Talent Solutions (“ITS”).

Plaintiff's work was supervised by defendant Clemons, who exhibited an array of inappropriate work behaviors. According to plaintiff, defendant Clemons advised plaintiff to work more slowly so that she could fill the day with assignments given, gave plaintiff tasks that were not work-related such as organizing binders and writing a resume for defendant Clemons's boyfriend. Defendant Clemons also gossiped, ignored plaintiff's concerns about coworkers (including defendant Bess), skipped work without letting others know she would be absent, and watched television shows on her work computer. Plaintiff felt that the working environment created by defendant Clemons was so poor that she ate lunch in her car, but did not quit or report defendant Clemons to human resources (“HR”) because she needed the job and hoped to secure a permanent position.

Plaintiff's work at LipoScience slowed and eventually they did not have work for her, so she left the position on July 23, 2010, and used that time to get a needed surgery. Defendant Clemons had told plaintiff that summer months were slow, but there would be more work for plaintiff later in the year. Accordingly, plaintiff returned to work on August 23, 2010. A few days earlier, on August 20, 2012, plaintiff obtained a prescription for Prozac, due to her depression about returning to work at LipoScience.²

Upon return to work, defendant Bess began to harass plaintiff by flirting and expressing interest in her. Defendant Bess's behavior was undeterred by meeting plaintiff's husband. Defendant Bess attempted to kiss plaintiff after following her to her car. He also attempted to follow plaintiff into the women's restroom and kiss her. These types of incidents continued, becoming more aggressive. In response plaintiff would push defendant Bess away and/or turn away from him. Plaintiff was afraid of defendant Bess and suffered from panic attacks due to his presence.

Plaintiff talked about defendant Bess with her co-workers, who responded with stories of similar behavior that defendant Bess had displayed in the past toward other women working at LipoScience. Plaintiff reported defendant Bess's behavior to defendant Clemons, who also knew of past similar behaviors. Defendant Clemons indicated that she would talk to her boss and get back to plaintiff. Plaintiff's anxiety worsened over the course of her employment, to the point where she was prescribed Xanax on January 18, 2011. Plaintiff was terminated from her position on February 14, 2011.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo those portions of an M & R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M & R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Wojcicki v. Aiken Technical Coll., 360 Fed.Appx. 484, 487 (4th Cir.2010) (a pro se Title VII litigant is entitled to have pleadings read liberally). Liberal construction is particularly appropriate when a pro se complaint raises civil rights issues. Brown v. N. Carolina Dept. of Corr., 612 F.3d 720, 722 (4th Cir.2010). However,

a district court is not required to recognize obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them.... The special judicial solicitude with which a district court should view such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate. Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed.Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Services for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Rule 12(b)(1) Dismissal of ADA, GINA & ADHA Claims

Before bringing a discrimination claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must first file a discrimination charge with the EEOC. This charge determines the scope of the plaintiff's right to bring a subsequent Title VII action in federal court. See, e.g., Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir.2002). “[O]nly those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge, those reasonably related to the original complaint, and those developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit.” Evans v. Techs. Applications & Servs. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 963 (4th Cir.1996). As noted in the M & R, a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in an EEOC action deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir.2009).

The Fourth Circuit takes a narrow approach to determining if claims are “reasonably related” to or “developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint.” Evans, 80 F.3d at 963. If the EEOC charge alleges discrimination on one basis, and the federal action alleges discrimination on a different basis, the separate federal claim will generally be barred. Jones, 551 F.3d at 300. The Fourth Circuit has held that a plaintiff may not expand an adverse employment action beyond the allegations stated in the original EEOC charge. Chacko v. Patuxent Institution, 429 F.3d 505, 509 (4th Cir.2005).

Defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her discrimination claims under the ADA, ADEA, and GINA, and move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in part on this ground. Plaintiff responded in agreement by filing on April 19, 2012, also asking the court not to consider claims pursuant to these three statutes. Plaintiff does not concede any other claims. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss in part is granted as to plaintiff's ADA, ADEA, and GINA claims.

C. 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss

Defendants challenge the pleadings, in part, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In evaluating their motion, “[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591...