Mullis v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank

• Decision Date: 17 October 1997
• Docket Number: Civil No. 2:97CV697.
• Citation: 994 F.Supp. 680
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Kathleen C. MULLIS, Plaintiff, v. MECHANICS & FARMERS BANK; Monarch Temporary Services, Inc.; and Jerry M. Spence, Defendants.

994 F.Supp. 680

Kathleen C. MULLIS, Plaintiff, v. MECHANICS & FARMERS BANK; Monarch Temporary Services, Inc.; and Jerry M. Spence, Defendants.

Civil No. 2:97CV697.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina, Greensboro Division.

October 17, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jerry R. Everhardt, Greensboro, NC, for Kathleen C. Mullis.

Charles A. Edwards, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, NC, for Mechanics & Farmers Bank.

Eric Coates Michaux, Michaux & Michaux, Durham, NC, for Monarch Temporary Services, Inc.

Bryan Edward Wardell, The Banks Law Firm, P.A., Raleigh, NC, Sherrod Banks, Banks Law Firm, P.A., Raleigh, NC, for Jerry M. Spence.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BULLOCK, Chief Judge.

Before the court are the motions of Monarch Temporary Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Monarch") and Mechanics & Farmers Bank (hereinafter "Mechanics") to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.¹ Plaintiff initiated this action on May 14, 1997, by filing a complaint in state court against Defendants Monarch, Mechanics, and Jerry M. Spence (hereinafter "Spence"). The complaint contains several causes of action arising out of Plaintiff's claim that she was subjected to sexual harassment and was discharged from her work at Mechanics because of her sex and in retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment. On June 30, 1997, Defendants removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Monarch: (1) intentional discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff's sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act ("NCEEPA"), N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143-422 .1 et seq.; (2) retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII and of the NCEEPA; and (3) wrongful or bad faith discharge in violation of North Carolina public policy. Plaintiff brings the same state law claims against Mechanics as well as an additional state law claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, she does not assert any Title VII claims against Mechanics.²

For the reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

FACTS

In assessing whether Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court will take as true the facts alleged by Plaintiff.

On January 29, 1996, Plaintiff was assigned by Monarch to work as a temporary loan secretary for Mechanics at a Mechanics branch located in Durham, North Carolina. Approximately one week after Plaintiff began her assignment at Mechanics, Spence assumed the position of vice president/branch manager at Plaintiff's branch and thereafter acted as Plaintiff's immediate supervisor.

Throughout the course of her assignment at Mechanics, Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment by Spence in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct. Plaintiff also alleges that the conduct made her physically ill. The physical conduct included instances where Spence would place his hand intentionally on Plaintiff's legs while he retrieved forms from her desk and where Spence would pass by Plaintiff intentionally while she stood at the photocopier and brush the front of his body against her. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 7-8 attached as Ex. 1 to Defs.' Notice of Removal.

The verbal conduct included comments such as "`You are a good-looking white woman'" and asking Plaintiff if she had "ever gone out with a black man." Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 9. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that in early April 1996 she went to Spence to inquire about the personal loan she had applied for in late March 1996, and that Spence had replied that he would approve the loan when "he got what he wanted." Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 9.

Sometime during February of 1996, Plaintiff reported Spence's offensive behavior and its effect upon her physical health to James E. Sansom ("Sansom"), a senior vice president of Mechanics and Spence's supervisor. Plaintiff alleges that Sansom said he would "speak to" Spence regarding his behavior. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 10. While Plaintiff is without information as to whether Sansom actually met with Spence, she does allege that, several days after she reported Spence's behavior to Sansom, Spence told Plaintiff that her "mouth would get her in trouble." Id. Other than Sansom's statement that he would speak to Spence, Plaintiff alleges that Mechanics made no investigation into Plaintiff's complaint and made no effort to remedy Spence's behavior or its effect upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that she made her supervisor at Monarch, Rebecca Murdock ("Murdock"), aware of her situation at Mechanics and that Monarch made no investigation into and made no attempt to remedy her situation at Mechanics other than telling Plaintiff to "hang in there." Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 12.

On April 8, 1996, Plaintiff telephoned Spence and informed him that she would not be reporting to work that day as a result of an illness. Plaintiff told Spence that the illness was caused by her work situation. Later than day, Murdock telephoned Plaintiff and told her that she would not be returning to work at Mechanics. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Mechanics and Monarch with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on or about May 19, 1996. Plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC regarding Monarch on January 27, 1997. Plaintiff makes no claim against Mechanics under Title VII.

DISCUSSION

Dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is improper "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In considering the present motions, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations and views the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993).

A. Title VII Claims Against Monarch

1. Intentional discrimination on the basis of sex

Plaintiff's claims for intentional discrimination on the basis of sex is in essence a claim for hostile environment sexual discrimination. See Meritor Sav. Bank FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 63-64, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (recognizing that Title VII provides a remedy for victims of sexually hostile working environments). To sustain a claim for hostile environment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege and prove that (1) she was harassed because of her sex; (2) the harassment was unwelcome; (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiff's conditions of employment and to create an abusive or hostile work environment; and (4) some factual basis exists for imputing liability to the employer. See Hartsell v. Duplex Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 771-72 (4th Cir.1997).

Monarch, focusing on the fourth element, asserts that it was not Plaintiff's "employer" under Title VII. Analysis of this issue proceeds in two steps. First, the court must determine whether Monarch was Plaintiff's employer. If Monarch was Plaintiff's employer, then the analysis turns to whether Plaintiff has alleged a factual basis to show that Monarch should be liable for Spence's alleged harassment.

To establish that the defendant is her employer, a plaintiff must show that the defendant meets the statutory definition of employer,³ and that an employer-employee relationship existed between herself and the defendant. See Garrett v. Phillips Mills, Inc., 721 F.2d 979, 980 (4th Cir.1983) (interpreting Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), in which the operative language is identical to the operative language in Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, to mean that an "individual" only has a cause of action under the ADEA if he is an employee of the defendant); Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, Inc., 6 F.3d 211 (4th Cir.1993) (applying Garrett analysis to determine whether plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor in Title VII action).⁴

In determining whether an employer-employee relationship is present under Title VII, the Fourth Circuit has recently directed that courts are to be guided by "`the conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine.'" Cilecek v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 115 F.3d 256, 259 (4th Cir.1997) (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992) (adopting a common law test for who qualifies as an employee under ERISA)). The Cilecek court explained, "In order to establish a uniform nationwide application of the terms `employer,' `employee,' and `scope of employment' for the purposes of applying federal statutes [where Congress has left those terms largely undefined] [the Supreme Court] instructs that we rely on `the general common law of agency....'" Cilecek, 115 F.3d at 259-60 (emphasis added by Cilecek) (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 740-41, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989)). The Supreme Court has noted that it looks to such sources as the Restatement of Agency to determine the common law of agency. See Reid, 490 U.S. at 752 n. 31.

Monarch does not dispute that it falls within definition of employer, but instead contends that it cannot be liable because Plaintiff was not its employee. In this case, Plaintiff alleges that she was employed as a temporary employee by Monarch and that Monarch placed her in a temporary assignment with Mechanics. At common law, the status of an individual employed under such circumstances was analyzed under the loaned-servant doctrine. The loaned-servant doctrine provides that an employee directed or permitted to perform services for another "special employer" may become the special employer's employee while performing those services. See Maynard v....