Oliver v. Roehm Am.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-1831 |
| Parties | CHELSEA OLIVER v. ROEHM AMERICA, LLC et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
CHELSEA OLIVER
v.
ROEHM AMERICA, LLC et al.
Civil Action No. 21-1831
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
October 20, 2022
SECTION: “G” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This litigation arises from an alleged controversy over Defendant Roehm America, LLC's (“Roehm”) termination of Plaintiff Chelsea Oliver (“Oliver”).[1] Oliver brings claims against Roehm, Andrew Stillufsen (“Stillufsen”), Yolanda Brown (“Brown”), Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey (“Chubb”), and Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),[2] the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),[3] the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”),[4] the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”),[5] and Louisiana law. Before the Court is Roehm's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.[6] In the motion, Roehm argues that Oliver's Second Amended Complaint[7] fails to state a claim against it and so all
claims against Roehm should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).[8]Oliver opposes the motion.[9] Roehm replies in further support of the motion.[10]
Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part. The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of any claim: (1) under the ADA or Title VII based on any alleged discrete employment action that occurred prior to September 1, 2020; (2) under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Act (“LEDL”) or Louisiana Human Rights Act (“LHRA”) based on any alleged discrete employment action that occurred prior to June 28, 2020; (3) based on an alleged hostile work environment; (4) based on an alleged failure to accommodate under the ADA; (5) for compensatory and punitive damages for retaliation in violation of the ADA; (6) based on alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate under the LHRA; (7) under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice Act (“LUTPA”); and (8) for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). The motion is denied in all other respects.
I. Background
On October 5, 2021, Oliver filed a Complaint in this Court against Roehm, Brown, and Stillufsen.[11] On December 12, 2021, Oliver filed a First Amended Complaint.[12] On March 29, 2022, Oliver filed the instant Second Amended Complaint naming Chubb and Federal as additional
defendants.[13] In the Second Amended Complaint, Oliver alleges that she was hired by Evonik Cyro, LLC (“Evonik”) in March 2017 to work at a methacrylate production facility located at 10800 River Road, Westwego, Louisiana (the “Facility”) as an administrative assistant and was one of only four female employees at the Facility.[14] Oliver avers that Roehm became the owner of the Facility in September 2019.[15] Oliver contends that, when she was hired, she was told “that [Evonik] had a tuition reimbursement policy;” however, upon beginning her employment, she was told that the policy only applied to management and, despite earning merit raises and bonuses, she was not granted tuition reimbursement nor promoted through June 2019.[16] In July 2019, Oliver alleges that she submitted another request for reimbursement and was told “that she was in fact eligible for tuition reimbursement.”[17] Thus, “she submitted the necessary paperwork, and yet, never received any reimbursement.”[18]
Oliver alleges that, after Roehm took over the Facility, new managers were hired and new policies were initiated, but the tuition reimbursement policy stayed the same; yet, the interim Plant Manager, Drew Scott (“Scott”), never granted her tuition reimbursement despite telling her she was eligible and that other male employees were receiving reimbursement.[19] Oliver avers that, although Scott ignored her requests for a raise, promotion, and tuition reimbursement through
January 2020, Scott encouraged male employees to take classes, offered them tuition reimbursement, waived educational requirements for promotion for one employee who declined to take classes, and gave a “spot bonus” to another who took classes but declined the reimbursement terms.[20]
Oliver contends that, in February 2020, Roehm hired Brown as a human resources manager and site manager of the Facility.[21] Oliver alleges that, in March 2020, Oliver requested and received approval for FMLA leave from March 3, 2020, until March 15, 2020, “for a knee surgery her physician suggested she undergo” due to chronic pain (“First FMLA Leave”).[22] Oliver avers that, after her First FMLA Leave, she worked from home based on Scott's instructions due to COVID-19 and her doctor's recommendation; however, she was removed from remotely-held meetings she had previously attended and was barred from working overtime despite previously working hundreds of overtime hours per year.[23]
Oliver alleges that, in August 2020, her doctor determined the knee surgery had failed and she required a second surgery. Therefore, she was granted FMLA leave from August 18, 2020, until August 30, 2020,[24] which was extended until October 30, 2020 (“Second FMLA Leave”).[25]Oliver contends that, “[i]mmediately after she left for [her Second FMLA Leave], [] Brown started
building up a case to terminate [her]” by “investigating her hours and timesheets.”[26] Oliver avers that, on August 30, 2020, she submitted comments as part of her performance review requesting a promotion, never heard back from her supervisor, and was terminated on October 6, 2020, during a call from Brown, Stillufsen, as Roehm's General Counsel, and Roehm's Corporate Vice President of Human Resources.[27] During the phone call, Oliver alleges that Brown told her she should be at work based on Facebook photos Oliver had posted playing with her child and accused her of falsifying her FMLA leave, disability pay, and overtime requests.[28] Oliver contends that, from January 2020 to March 2020, she alerted Roehm that numerous male employees falsified their hours but these employees “were never disciplined.”[29] Furthermore, Oliver asserts that a male employee on extended leave due to a shoulder and back injury “posted numerous photos on Facebook . . . [of him] enjoying time with his family, including traveling and carrying his grandchildren,” but “was not terminated, investigated or disciplined in anyway.”[30]
Oliver alleges that, after her termination, Stillufsen responded to her letter alleging Roehm had violated her legal rights by threatening to sue her for over $71,000 in approved overtime and
short-term disability pay.[31] Oliver contends that, on June 28, 2021, she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) a charge of discrimination against Roehm “alleging disability and gender discrimination, and retaliation” (the “EEOC Charge”).[32] Oliver alleges that she was issued a notice of right to sue by the EEOC on December 21, 2021.[33] Oliver avers that she was replaced at Roehm by “a man who had not engaged in protected activity under federal or state law and did not have any disabilities.”[34] Finally, Oliver asserts that Chubb and Federal “provided a contract of insurance to Roehm that is applicable to the claims asserted” in the Second Amended Complaint.[35]
In the Second Amended Complaint, Oliver brings ten claims against Roehm: (1) interference with and retaliation for Oliver's exercise of her FMLA rights (“FMLA Claim”);[36] (2) disability discrimination and failure to accommodate Oliver's disability in violation of the ADA (“ADA Discrimination Claim”);[37] (3) retaliation for Oliver's request for disability accommodation in violation of the ADA (“ADA Retaliation Claim”);[38] (4) disability discrimination and failure to accommodate Oliver's disability in violation of the LEDL (“LEDL Disability Discrimination
Claim”);[39] (5) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII (“Title VII Claim”);[40] (6) gender discrimination in violation of the LEDL (“LEDL Gender Discrimination Claim”);[41] (7) retaliation for opposing an unlawful practice under the LEDL in violation of the LHRA (“LHRA Retaliation Claim”);[42] (8) retaliation for Oliver's use of an employee group health insurance and short-term disability policy in violation of ERISA (“ERISA Claim”);[43] (9) use of unfair and deceptive trade practices by promising Oliver protected time off and then firing her “for receiving treatment for [her] knee injury before that time expired in violation of LUTPA (“LUTPA Claim”);[44] and (10) and IIED for terminating Oliver after promising her protective leave to recover from her knee surgery and then repeatedly threatening to sue in violation of Louisiana law (“IIED Claim”).[45]
On April 12, 2022, Roehm filed the instant “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.”[46] On May 6, 2022, Oliver filed an opposition to the motion.[47] On May 13, 2022, Roehm filed a reply in further support of the motion.[48]
II. Parties' Arguments
A. Roehm's Arguments in Support of the Motion
Roehm moves the Court to dismiss all claims pending against it.[49] The Court summarizes Roehm's arguments why each of Oliver's claims against it should be dismissed in turn. However, the Court first summarizes Roehm's ancillary arguments that Oliver's claims are prescribed in part and that Oliver fails to state any claim based on a hostile work environment or failure to promote.
1. Prescription
Roehm argues that Oliver's claims asserted under the ADA, Title VII, LEDL, and LHRA are time-barred in part because Oliver “did not file a charge of discrimination with the [EEOC] until June 28, 2021.”[50] Thus, Roehm avers that Oliver's claims brought pursuant to the LEDL and LHRA are prescribed to the extent that they are based on employment actions before June 28, 2020, given the...
To continue reading
Request your trial