Parton v. Smoky Mountain Knife Works, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No.: 3:10-CV-436,: 3:10-CV-436 |
| Parties | JENNIFER LYNN PARTON, Plaintiff, v. SMOKY MOUNTAIN KNIFE WORKS, INC. and CHASE PIPES, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
(VARLAN/GUYTON)
Invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and supplemental jurisdiction, plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Parton filed the present civil action against defendants Smoky Mountain Knife Works, Inc. ("SMKW") and Chase Pipes ("Pipes") (together, "defendants"), alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation as well as outrageous conduct [Doc. 1]. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [Doc. 4]. After no response from plaintiff, defendants filed a motion to grant defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 7]. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and defendants filed a response in opposition [Docs. 8, 9]. The Court has carefully considered the parties' motions and supporting materials [Docs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9] in light of controlling law. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will grant in part and deny in part defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 4], deny as moot defendants' motion to dismiss for plaintiff's failure torespond [Doc. 7], and grant in part and deny in part plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint [Doc. 8].1
Plaintiff alleges she worked for SMKW for fifteen years before she was sexually assaulted by Pipes, who is a shareholder and son of the founder of SMKW and has been employed by SMKW in various capacities [Doc. 1 ¶¶ 6-7]. Plaintiff and Pipes allegedly shared an office at SMKW, and in June 2008, Pipes began placing personal letters to plaintiff on her desk, which disclosed his attestations of amorous intent [Id. at ¶ 8]. After receiving the letters, plaintiff informed her direct supervisor, Doug Stone ("Stone"), about the letters in accordance with company policy. Stone advised plaintiff "that it would be unwise to show the letters to the owner of the company" and implied that "providing evidence against the owner's son would place her job in jeopardy" [Id. at ¶ 9].
Plaintiff asserts that Pipes's unsolicited affection continued. According to plaintiff, Pipes openly began fantasizing to plaintiff about getting a divorce in order to start a relationship with her, but plaintiff advised Pipes that she was happily married and her relationship with Pipes was strictly professional [Doc. 1 ¶ 11]. Around the same time, plaintiff began fertility treatments to conceive a child with her husband, but this allegedlyagitated Pipes and renewed his interest in wooing plaintiff. He indicated that if she would leave her husband he would provide her with a "better life" [Id. at ¶ 12-14].
In August 2008, Pipes allegedly demanded that plaintiff meet him outside of work to discuss his amorous intentions, but plaintiff refused and advised him that it would be inappropriate because she was a newlywed and it would create undue strain on their working relationship [Id. at ¶¶ 16-17]. Pipes responded by informing plaintiff that his father would be retiring soon and if she would begin a relationship with him and bear his child instead of her husband's child, he could provide her with all the security she would ever need. He insisted that "once his father retired, no one knew what would happen to her" [Id. at ¶¶ 18-19]. Plaintiff's refusal did not thwart Pipes's affection, and at the end of August 2008, Pipes allegedly approached plaintiff again about starting a romantic relationship, presenting her with a Kindle and another love letter [Id. at ¶ 20]. Plaintiff told Pipes that she could no longer work with him and informed Stone of the incidents that took place [Id. at ¶¶ 21-22]. Stone advised her that he would speak with Pipes about his actions [Id. at ¶ 22].
The following day, plaintiff asserts she received a call from Pipes while she was at work. She later learned Pipes called her while he was in line at Wal-Mart, in close proximity to plaintiff's husband, with the intent to taunt her husband about the possibility of an adulterous liaison [Id. at ¶¶ 23-24]. The following day, plaintiff again reported the incident to Stone, who then took plaintiff to the company CFO. As a result, Pipes was required to vacate their shared office and apologize [Id. at ¶¶ 25-26].
A few weeks later, plaintiff received a text message from Pipes's wife with the word "HOMEWRECKER!" in its body. The following day, plaintiff showed the text message to Stone and informed him that Pipes's behavior had to stop [Id. at ¶¶ 28-29]. Afterwards, Pipes allegedly called plaintiff to apologize and requested that she remove the write-up from his file. She advised him that he should not contact her and she would not remove the write-up from his file [Id. at ¶ 30]. In the same conversation, Pipes allegedly told plaintiff that "the company was losing money and that people were going to be laid off, and he was not sure her job was safe since she was no longer his friend" [Id. at ¶ 31 (quotation marks omitted)]. Plaintiff perceived this as a threat to her employment [Id.].
Plaintiff asserts Pipes began a campaign to pressure her to allow him to share her office and repeatedly requested that she drop her complaint against him, assuring that, if she did drop the complaint, things would return to normal. Pipes also would inquire into plaintiff's attempts to conceive with her husband [Id. at ¶¶ 32-33]. Plaintiff told Pipes that she was happily married and asked if her continued employment depended upon her not conceiving with her husband, to which Pipes allegedly responded, "no one is safe anymore" [Id. at ¶ 34]. Plaintiff claims she again informed her supervisor of Pipes's behavior.
Subsequently, Pipes stopped his harassing behavior and offered the use of his father's farm to stable plaintiff's horses for the winter free of charge [Id. at ¶¶ 35-36]. On November 14, 2008, Pipes allegedly called plaintiff at work to discuss the use of his father's farm, but she initially refused his offer. In response, Pipes advised her that job cuts at SMKW would occur in January. Plaintiff asserts she asked if he was threatening her job if she did notaccept his demands, but he said he was not and just wanted to help her with her horses [Id. at ¶¶ 38-42]. Allegedly, he again warned her that employees were being fired, specifically a particular female employee who refused to cooperate, which plaintiff understood as a threat to her employment [Id. at ¶ 43]. The conversation returned to the use of the farm; plaintiff wanted something in writing before she allowed her horses to stay at his father's farm. Pipes offered to take her to the manager of the farm, Martez, and she agreed because she personally knew Martez [Id. at ¶¶ 46-47].
Plaintiff arrived at the farm and stood at the front door to meet with Martez. She heard Pipes yell that she should come inside and look at his son's room. Allegedly, as soon as plaintiff walked in the house, Pipes grabbed her from behind and bound her arms with a cloth or rope [Id. at ¶¶ 48-49]. Plaintiff protested and asked him to refrain, but Pipes dragged her to his bedroom and forcibly began to kiss her neck. She fought back by biting him. To subdue plaintiff, Pipes grabbed a shirt and placed it over her face. Allegedly, Pipes then forcibly pulled down plaintiff's pants and raped her without wearing a condom [Id. at ¶¶ 50-52]. Plaintiff then replaced her clothes and left the building. Pipes asked her if she wanted to see the pasture, but she replied that he was crazy after what he had done to her and she was going to be sick. Pipes said he knew of another woman that could do her job and he had mentioned this to his father. He further stated that "times are tough, so it depends on who needs the job worse" [Id. at ¶¶ 54-55].
Plaintiff returned to work and immediately called her physician, who advised her to go to the Emergency Room. Plaintiff went to the Knoxville Rape Center where a rape kit was performed [Id. at ¶¶ 56-57]. She did not return to work because she was afraid she would be forced to work with her attacker. Subsequently, her supervisor, without knowing of the attack, later claimed that she voluntarily quit as a grounds for denying her unemployment claim [Id. at ¶¶ 58-59].
After the attack, plaintiff claims that SMKW began a smear campaign against her in order to silence her complaint and prevent her from receiving suitable employment. As a result of the incident on November 14, 2008, plaintiff's marriage broke down [Id. at ¶¶ 61-63]. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by two separate physicians, for which she continues to seek medical treatment [Id. at ¶ 60].
On April 12, 2009, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission ("THRC") and with the Equal Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") [Doc. 4-1]. Plaintiff was issued a right to sue letter by the EEOC on July 16, 2010 [Doc. 1-1].
On October 13, 2010, plaintiff commenced this action alleging claims of quid pro quo sexual harassment, retaliation, and outrageous conduct [Doc. 1]. Defendants responded with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [Docs. 4, 5]. After no response from plaintiff, defendants filed a motion to grant defendants' motion to dismiss due to plaintiff's failure to respond [Doc. 7]. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and defendants filed a response in opposition [Docs. 8, 9].
A party may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain allegations supporting all material elements of the claims. Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2008). To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff need only offer "'a short and...
To continue reading
Request your trial