Whitfield v. DLP Wilson Med. Ctr., LLC

• Decision Date: 26 August 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 5:20-CV-91-FL,5:20-CV-91-FL
• Citation: 482 F.Supp.3d 485
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Christel WHITFIELD, Plaintiff, v. DLP WILSON MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Defendant.

482 F.Supp.3d 485

Christel WHITFIELD, Plaintiff,

v.DLP WILSON MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Defendant.

NO. 5:20-CV-91-FL

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.

Signed August 26, 2020

Reginald Goodson, Goodson Law Firm, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff.

Stephen D. Dellinger, Littler Mendelson, PC, Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (DE 16). The issues raised have been fully briefed, and in this posture are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion is granted.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff commenced this action in Wilson County Superior Court on January 23, 2020, alleging unlawful termination and hostile work environment by defendant on the basis of her race in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff also alleges several claims under North Carolina law. On March 11, 2020, the case was removed to this court. After several extensions of time, defendant filed the instant motion.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts alleged in the complaint may be summarized as follows. Beginning in October 2015, defendant employed plaintiff as a Certified Nursing Assistant II ("CNA") and a Unit Secretary. (Compl. ¶ 8). In January 2016, defendant hired another CNA named Crystal Wieland ("Wieland"). (Id. ¶ 9). Because plaintiff and Wieland had similar names, co-workers tried to come up with a way to distinguish who they were talking to when they addressed plaintiff and Wieland. (Id. ¶¶ 10–11).

One nurse, Penny LaPointe ("LaPointe"), decided that the best way to distinguish between plaintiff and Wieland was to call plaintiff "black Christel" and the new CNA "white Crystal."¹ (Id. ¶ 12). Plaintiff told LaPointe that she did not like or want to be called "black Christel" and that she preferred to be called Whitfield, Rae, or Ms. Christel. (Id. ¶ 13). However, LaPointe ignored plaintiff's request and continued to refer to plaintiff as "black Christel." (Id. ¶¶ 14, 17). Eventually, other nurses, including Tammy Brock ("Brock"), also started to refer to plaintiff as "black Christel," though they ceased doing so at plaintiff's request. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16).

A few months later, Wieland stopped working at the hospital. (Id. ¶ 18). Although plaintiff thought that things might go back to normal, LaPointe started referring to plaintiff as "black Heifer." (Id. ). Plaintiff asked LaPointe why she was calling plaintiff that, and LaPointe responded by shrugging her shoulders and responding "I don't know." (Id. ¶ 19). LaPointe continued to address plaintiff as "black Heifer." (Id. ¶ 20).

In June 2016, the name calling escalated. (Id. ¶ 22). LaPointe made a remark to plaintiff, but plaintiff did not understand what LaPointe said. (Id. ¶ 23). When plaintiff asked for clarification, LaPointe responded "You heard me you black b* * * *." (Id. ). The next day, plaintiff called the supervisor, Zandra Holloman ("Holloman") and reported the incident the day before as well as prior comments she had been forced to endure since the beginning of the year. (Id. ¶ 25). Holloman assured plaintiff that she would take care of the issue. (Id. ¶ 26).

When plaintiff returned to work, LaPointe walked in and said something to her. (Id. ¶ 27). Plaintiff did not hear what LaPointe said, asked her to repeat herself, and LaPointe responded "You heard me you black b* * * *." (Id. ¶ 28). Plaintiff immediately sought out Holloman, told Holloman that LaPointe had just called her a black b* * * *, and asked Holloman if she had spoken to LaPointe about what had previously happened. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 31, 32). Holloman responded that she had not. (Id. ¶ 32). Plaintiff asked Holloman why she did not speak to LaPointe, to which Holloman responded that she wanted to hear LaPointe say it. (Id. ¶ 33). Plaintiff then asked Holloman if she wanted LaPointe to call her a black b* * * *, to which Holloman replied that she did not and that she would take care of it. (Id. ¶ 34).

In light of Holloman's previous failure to take corrective action, plaintiff complained to Debra Bradshaw ("Bradshaw"), defendant's Human Resources Officer. (Id. ¶ 35). A couple days later, plaintiff met with Holloman and Amy, Holloman's next in line supervisor, in the Human Resources department with Bradshaw. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 37). During the meeting, Bradshaw informed plaintiff that they had talked with LaPointe, who admitted that she had called plaintiff the names and that plaintiff had asked her to stop. (Id. ¶¶ 38–40). Believing that the working environment would not change, plaintiff met with the House Supervisor and told her about the past incidents and that she did not want to work with LaPointe. (Id. ¶ 41). The House Supervisor transferred plaintiff to the Psych/ED floor for a day. (Id. ¶ 42).

On September 25, 2017, plaintiff obtained a position at UNC Hospital. (Id. ¶ 43). Plaintiff gave her supervisor a two-week notice. (Id. ¶ 44). Plaintiff was terminated during the two-week notice period for calling-out of work for one day which was the last day of the two-week notice. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 45).

COURT'S DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. 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).

B. Analysis

1. Timeliness of Defendant's Motion

Plaintiff argues that defendant's motion is untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after removal of the case to federal court. However, on March 13, 2020, the court granted defendant an extension of time until April 8, 2020, to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to plaintiff's complaint. (Order (DE 13) at 1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Defendant filed the instant motion on April 3, 2020. Defendant's motion is timely filed.

2. 42 U.S.C. § 1981

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts ..., and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens ...." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). "[T]he term ‘make and enforce contracts’ includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." Id. § 1981(b). "The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(c).

a. Hostile Work Environment

To state a claim for hostile work environment under § 1981, plaintiff must allege harassment that was (1) unwelcome; (2) based on race; (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and (4) imputable to defendant as plaintiff's employer. E.E.O.C. v. Xerxes Corp., 639 F.3d 658, 668 (4th Cir. 2011) ; Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183–84 (4th Cir. 2001) (explaining the elements for a claim of hostile work environment are the same under § 1981 as they are under Title VII).

As to the third element, for misconduct to be severe or pervasive, the work environment "must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so."

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) ; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998). Whether harassment gives rise to an objectively hostile work environment requires an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, including "the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). "[M]ere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee," is insufficient to create an actionable hostile work environment. Id. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367 (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) ). Moreover, "simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment." Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[I]ncidents that would objectively give rise to bruised or wounded

feelings will not on that account satisfy the severe or pervasive standard." Evans v. Int'l Paper Co., 936 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal citation omitted). "Thus, rude treatment from coworkers, callous behavior by one's superiors, or a routine difference of opinion and personality conflict with one's supervisor are not actionable." Id.

Verbal harassment can, in certain situations, cross...