Wilson v. Nash Edgecombe Econ. Dev., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:19-CV-322-FL,5:19-CV-322-FL |
| Parties | GLORIA WILSON, PHYLLIS RODGERS, EVELYN POWELL, and ELAINE HUNT, Plaintiffs, v. NASH EDGECOMBE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC.; ELTON POWELL, Head Start Director; GINELL ROGERS, Executive Director; NASH EDGECOMBE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, January 1, 2017 - June 27, 2019; and JAMES COLLINS, Chairman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). (DE 40). Also pending is plaintiffs' second motion to amend complaint. (DE 45). The issues raised have been briefed fully, and in this posture, are ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs' second motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part. Where the parties' scheduling conference activities have been delayed pending resolution of this and prior pleading challenges mounted by defendants, the court's order also initiates these activities, as described more particularly below.
Plaintiffs Gloria Wilson ("Wilson"), Phyllis Rodgers ("Rodgers"), and Evelyn Powell ("Powell") commenced this employment discrimination action in Superior Court of Nash County, North Carolina, on June 27, 2019, asserting claims under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, as amended ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; as well as state law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act ("NCEEPA"); negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; libel and slander; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Defendants removed the case to this court on July 30, 2019, and moved to dismiss on August 27, 2019. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed amended complaint with leave of court, joining Elaine Hunt ("Hunt") as a plaintiff. After the court ruled that plaintiffs' amended complaint rendered defendants' first motion to dismiss moot, defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint January 29, 2020, seeking dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support of the motion, defendants rely upon 1) May 1, 2017, article in the Rocky Mount Telegram and 2) excerpt of defendant Nash Edgecombe Economic Development, Inc.'s ("NEED") conflict of interest personnel policy.2 Plaintiffs responded in opposition, and defendants replied.
On July 31, 2020, plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file second amended complaint, seeking to join Dr. Shiquita Blue ("Dr. Blue") as a party plaintiff and assert additional claims on behalf of plaintiff Powell. Specifically, Dr. Blue seeks to assert ADEA; gender discrimination; hostile work environment; retaliation; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and NCEEPA claims. Plaintiff Powell seeks to assert retaliation and NCEEPA claims and to allege additional facts in support of her ADEA; gender discrimination; hostile work environment; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. On, August 21, 2020, defendants responded, opposing amendment due to plaintiffs' failure to file a memorandum in support of motion to amend, among other reasons. On August 23, 2020, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion.
The facts alleged in plaintiffs' first amended complaint may be summarized as follows. Defendant NEED is a non-profit organization that provides grants and services to low-income and moderate-income families residing in Nash, Edgecombe, and Wilson counties. (Am. Compl. (DE 37) ¶¶ 4,7). Defendant NEED employed plaintiffs as follows: plaintiff Wilson served as Family Development Division Director and was a member of the management team, plaintiff Rodgers served as an administrative assistant, plaintiff Hunt served as a Family Services Health Advocate, and plaintiff Powell served as the Education Manager. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 51). In addition, defendant Ginnell Rogers ("Rogers") served as defendant NEED's Executive Director, defendant James Collins ("Collins") served as chairman of defendant NEED's board of directors, and defendant Dr. Elton Powell ("Dr. Powell") served as Head Start Director. (Id. ¶ 13).
According to plaintiffs, defendant Rogers was not the top candidate for the Executive Director position. (Id. ¶ 399). She did not have supervisory experience, and she had not managed a budget comparable to defendant NEED's budget. (Id. ¶ 400). Nevertheless, defendant NEED hired defendant Rogers to serve as the Executive Director in 2017. (Id. ¶ 397).
Prior to her employment with defendant NEED, defendant Rogers worked in the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Division of Economic Opportunity, where she monitored community block grants for several agencies, including defendant NEED. (Id. ¶ 56). In light of this experience, plaintiffs allege defendant Rogers was familiar with defendant NEED's staff demographics, and formed the intent to discriminate against defendant NEED's older employees before she became its Executive Director. (Id. ¶ 57).
Soon after defendant NEED hired defendant Rogers as Executive Director in 2017, a staff writer for The Rocky Mount Telegram, interviewed defendant Rogers. (Id. ¶ 47). Plaintiffs allege defendant Rogers stated in the interview that "NEED has never had an Executive Director as young as [her], and that her goal is to eventually have a more younger presence in NEED." (Id. ¶ 48). Plaintiffs also allege that defendant Rogers stated "a lot of employees are older, and [she does not] see a lot of the younger generation within management [at defendant NEED]. (Id.). Finally, plaintiffs allege defendant Rogers "stated that it is harder for the older generation to adapt and change." (Id.).
Plaintiffs also allege defendant Rogers "provide[d] preferential treatment to the male employees." (Id. ¶ 345). In particular, defendant Rogers suspended without pay two female employees, Joyce Lloyd and Sandra Lancaster, when their letters of qualification expired; yet, she allowed two male employees, Joseph Macklin and Howie Stephens, to continue working after theirletters of qualification expired, and she allowed defendant Dr. Powell to begin working at defendant NEED before he obtained a letter of qualification. (Id. ¶¶ 341-343). Moreover, defendant Rogers denied Rosilyn Kee's request for vacation leave, but she approved Reggie Chambers's ("Chambers") request for vacation, even though both requests were submitted around the same time period. (Id. ¶ 344).
On January 24, 2018, defendant Rogers met with plaintiff Wilson and her staff, and she stated that plaintiff Wilson's salary could be decreased to balance the budget. (Id. ¶ 87). Plaintiff Wilson viewed this statement as a threat, and it created an alleged hostile work environment. (Id. ¶ 88). Then, on February 9, 2018, while plaintiff Wilson was on bereavement leave due to the death of her brother, defendant Rogers recommended that plaintiff Wilson's salary be decreased by $6,000.00, and senior staff member Kathy Finch's salary be decreased by $4,000.00, to balance the budget. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 74). Defendant Rogers allegedly planned to decrease Finch's and plaintiff Wilson's salaries in order to increase two younger staff members' salaries by $3,000.00 dollars each. (Id. ¶ 53). However, defendant Board of Directors did not reduce plaintiff Wilson's salary. (Id. ¶ 78).
Thereafter, defendant Rogers allegedly created a hostile work environment by making numerous unattainable work demands. (Id. ¶ 79). For example, on March 26, 2018, defendant Rogers emailed plaintiff Wilson at 4:00 p.m., demanding that plaintiff Wilson meet with her staff and prepare a report by 5:00 p.m., even though plaintiff Wilson was scheduled to leave for vacation the next day. (Id. ¶ 80). Plaintiff Wilson and her staff worked until 8:00 p.m. to complete the report. (Id. ¶ 81). Defendant Rogers allegedly did not use the report, and she told the staff she did not know why plaintiff Wilson required them to work late. (Id. ¶¶ 81-82). Moreover, on severaloccasions, defendant Rogers allegedly tried to solicit negative comments from plaintiff Wilson's staff regarding plaintiff Wilson's job performance. (Id. ¶ 84). Although defendant Rogers's efforts were unsuccessful, they affected the staff's moral and allegedly created a hostile work environment for plaintiff Wilson. (Id.).
During the 24 years the plaintiff Wilson worked for defendant NEED, she did not receive a negative performance evaluation until defendant Rogers conducted plaintiff Wilson's annual review, after observing plaintiff Wilson's performance for only four months. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21). Prior to this negative review, defendant Rogers did not provide plaintiff Wilson with any feedback on aspects of her performance that needed improvement. (Id. ¶ 22). On April 18, 2018, defendant Rogers terminated plaintiffs Wilson and Rodgers from their positions at defendant NEED. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 100). On the date of their termination, plaintiff Rodgers was 46 years old and plaintiff Wilson was 63 years old. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 128). According to discharge letters sent by defendant Rogers, the sole reason for their termination was an alleged conflict of interest with vendor Motivator Enterprise, LLC.3 (Id. ¶¶ 32, 107).
According to plaintiffs, defendant NEED's conflict of interest policy requires "[a]ny member of the Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial