Powell v. Nash Edgecombe Econ. Dev., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:20-CV-562-FL,5:20-CV-562-FL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | EVELYN POWELL and DR. SHIQUITA BLUE, Plaintiffs, v. NASH EDGECOMBE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendant. |
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 8) and plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint (DE 15). The issues raised have been briefed fully, and in this posture, are ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied.
Plaintiffs commenced this action in Nash County Superior Court on September 25, 2020, alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, as amended ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Defendant removed the case to this court on October 26, 2020. Shortly thereafter, defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim and on res judicata grounds, relying upon a memorandum of law and attachments thereto, including: 1) proposed second amended complaint filed in Wilson et al. v. Nash Edgecombe Economic Development, Inc. et al., No. 5:19-CV-322 (E.D.N.C.) ("the related action"); 2) the court's September 16, 2020, order in the related action; and 3) a May 1, 2017, article in the Rocky Mount Telegram. Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion on December 6, 2020, and defendant replied in support on January 5, 2021.
On February 1, 2021, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend complaint. Defendant responded in opposition on February 22, 2021, relying upon: 1) plaintiffs' Notices of Right to Sue, 2) plaintiffs' Notices of Charges of Discrimination, and 3) plaintiffs' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Charges.
The facts alleged in the complaint may be summarized as follows. Defendant is a non-profit organization that provides grants and services to low-income and moderate-income families residing in Nash, Edgecombe, and Wilson counties. (Compl. (DE 1-1) ¶¶ 4,7). Defendant employed plaintiff Dr. Shiquita Blue ("Blue") as family engagement and community partnership manager and plaintiff Evelyn Powell ("Powell") as education manager.
During her tenure as defendant's executive director, Ginell Rogers ("Rogers") allegedly engaged in a "pattern of discriminatory behavior." (Id. ¶¶ 26, 44). Specifically, she allegedly terminated six employees who were between 46 and 53 years old, while hiring 13 employees who were between 23 and 39 years old. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 48). Moreover, Rogers was quoted in The Rocky Mount Telegram, on May 1, 2017, stating "I don't see a lot of the younger generation withinmanagement here and that her goal is to eventually have a more younger [sic] presence in [defendant] NEED." (Id. ¶ 49).
Plaintiffs also allege Rogers suspended without pay two female employees when their letters of qualification expired; yet, she allowed two male employees to continue working after their letters of qualification expired, and she allowed Dr. Elton Powell to begin working before he obtained a letter of qualification. (Id. ¶¶ 58-60). Moreover, Rogers allegedly denied a female employee's request for vacation, while approving a male employee's request for vacation that was submitted around the same time period. (Id. ¶ 61).
Finally, plaintiffs allege that Rogers created a "hostile workplace environment." (Id. ¶ 70). In particular, Rogers allegedly "would always stand on the outside of the door when Plaintiff Blue was having meetings with her staff and then would come in and question what Plaintiff Blue said to her staff." (Id. ¶ 72). On one occasion, Rogers allegedly demanded that plaintiff Blue provide education information to the Office of Head Start, without the help of receptionist, and directed plaintiff Blue to notify the Office of Head Start by email that she would not be able to provide the information by the requested deadline. (Id. ¶ 71). When plaintiff Blue asked Rogers requestions regarding the contents of the email, Rogers allegedly screamed at her. (Id.). Plaintiff Blue "felt very intimidated by [ ] Rogers as she continued to stand over Plaintiff Blue as she wrote the email." (Id.).
On August 21, 2019, when plaintiffs were between 46 and 63 years old, defendant terminated plaintiffs, citing "inefficiency, negligence, or incompetence", as well as "failure to obey supervisor's instructions and discourteous act towards co-workers" as reasons for their termination. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6, 27-31,45). Defendant also cited a list of tasks that plaintiffs purportedlyfailed to complete, when plaintiffs allegedly completed those tasks. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35). Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Blue was an "exemplary" employee, who did not receive a negative performance evaluation until Rogers appointed herself as the interim Head Start Director in 2019. (Id. ¶ 21). Likewise, they allege that plaintiff Powell was an "outstanding" employee, who never received a negative performance evaluation. (Id. ¶ 22, 24).
Plaintiffs appealed their terminations to the chairman of defendant's board of directors, who authorized a special committee to preside over plaintiffs' appeal hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 38). Following hearing, the special committee recommended upholding the terminations due to "unsatisfactory job performance." (Id. ¶ 38).
Additional allegations pertinent to defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion to amend will be discussed below.
"To survive a motion to dismiss" under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In evaluating whether a claim is stated, "[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff," but does not consider "legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, . . . bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[,] . . . unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments."Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' age discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims. The court addresses these claims with respect to each plaintiff, in turn below.
Plaintiff Blue alleges that she was terminated because of her age. The ADEA provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). To state a claim under the ADEA, plaintiff must allege plausible facts to satisfy the elements of a cause of action created by that statute, that is, that defendant "discharge[d] [her] or otherwise discriminate[d]" against them "because of [her] age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) (emphasis added); McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582, 586 (4th Cir. 2015). The elements of a prima facie claim under the ADEA are: "(1) at the time of her firing, she was at least 40 years of age; (2) she was qualified for the job and performing in accordance with her employer's legitimate expectations; (3) her employer nonetheless discharged her; and (4) a substantially younger individual with comparable qualifications replaced her." Westmoreland v. TWC Admin. LLC, 924 F.3d 718, 725 (4th Cir. 2019). Importantly, an employee must allege "that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Id. (citing Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177-78 (2009)).
Plaintiff Blue fails to state a claim for age discrimination because she fails to plausibly allege the fourth element, that a substantially younger individual with comparable qualifications replaced her. In briefing, plaintiffs indicate that plaintiff Blue (Mem. (DE 10) at 9). However, this allegation is absent from the complaint, and a plaintiff may not amend complaint through argument in briefing. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 449 (4th Cir. 2011) (). Where plaintiff Blue fails to plausibly allege a prima facie case, plaintiff Blue's arguments regarding pretext are unavailing. See King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 150 (4th Cir. 2003) ( ).
Moreover, Rogers's statements, memorialized in article published March 1, 2017, do not support plaintiff Blue's ADEA claim, where plaintiff Blue fails to allege a nexus between the statements and her termination. See E.E.O.C. v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 941 (4th Cir. 1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial