Reed v. Action Prods., Inc., CIVIL No. 12-409-JKB

• Decision Date: 06 July 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL No. 12-409-JKB
• Parties: BRENDA L. REED, et al., Plaintiffs v. ACTION PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

BRENDA L. REED, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
ACTION PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants

CIVIL No. 12-409-JKB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Dated: July 6, 2012

MEMORANDUM

Brenda L. Reed and her husband, James L. Reed ("Plaintiffs") brought this suit against Mrs. Reed's former employer, Action Products, Inc., and two of her former supervisors, Donald L. Mease, Jr. and Vincent J. Serra ("Defendants"), alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Now pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3). The issues have been briefed and no oral argument is required. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

In this employment dispute, Plaintiff sues her former employer and two of her former supervisors for allegedly subjecting her to sexual harassment followed by persistent ridicule and insults after she complained. Specifically, she asserts claims for sexual harassment, constructive discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Plaintiff's

Page 2

husband joins in the last of these claims. Defendants have now moved to dismiss all claims other than that against Action Products, Inc. for sexual harassment and constructive discharge. Because resolution of this motion involves relatively straightforward application of settled law, further elaboration of the alleged facts is not necessary.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) is a test of the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To pass this test, a complaint need only present enough factual content to render its claims "plausible on [their] face" and enable the court to "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The plaintiff may not, however, rely on naked assertions, speculation, or legal conclusions. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). In assessing the merits of a motion to dismiss, the court must take all...