Lee v. Limited Brands Store Operations Inc et al

Filing 5

ORDER directing counsel to present materials re the case properly. The Court will disregard the materials attached to this Order until they are presented to the Clerk in proper form. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/17/12. (kpr) (Docket entry modified on 5/18/2012 to correct the file date.) (thd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

ANGELA M. LEE

v.

PLAINTIFF
No.4:12-cv-210-DPM

LIMITED BRANDS STORE
OPERATIONS, INC.; and
VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES LLC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has received the attached letter and enclosures from counsel
on behalf of the unserved defendants.

The Court will disregard these

materials until they are properly presented. And the Court admonishes the
defendants and their counsel that they should communicate with the Court
on any substantive matter by filing papers with the Clerk, not by sending
letters to chambers with a copy to Lee.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

/7 ~ :z.O/;;J­

VORYS

52 East Gay St.
PO Box 1008
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

614.464.6400 I www.vorys.com

Legal Counsel

Founded 1909

Adam J. Rocco
Direct Dial [phone]
Direct Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

May 9, 2012
VIA OVERNIGHT CARRIER

Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr.
600 West Capitol, Room B155
Little Rock, AR 72201

Re:

Angela M Lee v. Limited Brands Store Operations, Inc. and Victoria's
Secret Stores, LLC;
Case No. 4: 12-cv-210-DPM

Dear Judge Marshall:
We are counsel for Defendants Limited Brands Store Operations, Inc. ("LBSO")
and Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC ("VSS"). Although Defendants have yet to be served in the
above-captioned matter, we became aware of Plaintiff Angela Lee's wrongful termination
complaint by reviewing court filings. Further, we understand that the Court has given Plaintiff
until June 6, 2012 to: (1) file a complete, signed application to proceed without prepaying fees
or costs; and (2) to amend her complaint to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the Court
has jurisdiction.
Prior to filing her current complaint, Plaintiff Angela Lee filed Case No.4: ll-cv­
00236-SWW in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on March
14,2011 ("first lawsuit"), against LBSO and VSS. In her first lawsuit, Plaintiff also alleged that
she was wrongfully terminated from VSS. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that she was wrongfully
terminated because of her race. On June 14,2011, Judge Wright dismissed Plaintiffs claims
against LBSO. On March 2,2012, Judge Wright dismissed Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice
for failure to prosecute. Enclosed please find a copy of the following filings from Plaintiff s first
lawsuit: (1) her complaint; (2) the June 14, 20110rder dismissing LBSO; and (3) the March 2,
2012 order dismissing Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. We thought this information might
be useful to the Court when reviewing Plaintiff's complaint and any subsequent amendments
thereto. Once properly served, Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss on res judicata
grounds. See Lane v. Paterson, 899 F.2d 737, 742-43 (8th cir. 1990).

Columbus

I Washington I Cleveland I Cincinnati I Akron I Houston

VORYS

Legal Counsel

Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr.
May 9, 2012
Page 2

Very truly yours,

AJRJajr
cc:

Angela M. Lee.
James M. Gary, Esq.

5/09/2012 13791592

case 4:11-CV-UUZ:StHSWW uocument £-1

I-liea U::S114/1 1 ....age 1 OT 0

FILED

~lmirl~~~1SAS

MAR 14 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURt-ES W.~MACKI ClER~
EASTERN DISTRlCT OF ARKANSAS
.
Ui:.,')CLERK,
LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
ANGELA M. LEE

:

ThIe c.e . .gnect \0 DlIIriCt JucQt~;)"'"
~PLAINTIFF
, 1nd . . . . . . .Judge
,

VS.
LIMITED BRANDS STORE OPERATIONS, INC.

And VICTORlA'S SECRET STORES, LLC

4·.\\0I~~
DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, Limited Brands Store Operations, Inc. and
Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC because Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with
Defendants as a result ofDefendants' pattern and practice ofunlawful race discrimination, and as
a result ofDefendants' conspiracy to deprive persons of civil rights and interference with equal
privileges and immunities under the laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981; 42 U.S.C.A. §
1985(3); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq., as amended
("Title VII").
The Parties
1.

Plaintiff, Angela M. Lee, is ofthe Black race, and a woman. Plaintiff timely filed

a Charge with the EEOC, and received a Notice of Right to Sue on or after December 15. 2010.
2

Defendants, Limited Brands Store Operations, Inc. and Victoria's Secret Stores, .

LLC are foreign corporations doing business within the State of Arkansas, which may be served
with Summons and Complaint by serving their registered agent for service ofprocess, The
Corporation Company, 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, AR 7220 I.
Defendants are joint employers or an integrated enterprise within the meaning of Title VII.

,

t;ase

4:11-CV-UU~:$tH::iWW

uocument ~-1

riled U:$/14/11

I-'age

~

ot 0

'.

Jurisdiction
3.

Jurisdiction is conferred on this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 and 28

U.S.C.A. § 1332. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §·1391.
Facts
4.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants at the North Little Rock location of

Victoria's Secret in the McCain Malt She worked in the position known as the "Category
Manager", who satisfactorily performed the position ofher job.
S.

In March of2010, Plaintiffapplied for a Manager's position with the Defendants,

and although she was told she wou1d receive an interv~ew, she was ca])ed at home by the district
manager and was told that the position was already ftlled. On information and belief, the
Defendants hired a Caucasian to take the position ofManager, and sought to terminate the
Plaintiff~

as Plaintiff, would recognize that a less qualified person was hired in the position

sought by the Plaintiff.
6.

On or about April 2, 2010, Defendant was interviewed about alleged policy

violations, and it became apparent to the Defendant that the District Manager, and the Loss
Prevention Manager were seeking to make up and document a false reason to discharge the
Defendant from employment, as the Defendant had actually substantially complied with all of
the policies and conducted the procedures of the job, although on certain procedures she had
never received proper and adequate training. Nevertheless, she performed the duties in
accordance with the store routine, in which the LP manager was well aware.
7.

On or about April 7,2010, the District Manager, MicheI1e Repass, and Darin

Linnel, (LP Manager) both of the white race, arrived at the store with new personnel obviously
there to take over the Dcfendant'sjob. The Defendant was still an employee at that time.

2

(.;ase 4:11-cv-UU~~o-~WW uocument ~-1

8.

~nea U~/14/11

t-'age

~

or 0

On April 7, 2010, the District Manager and the LP manager attempted on several

occasions to "trap" the Plaintiff with an action to set up a circumstance for which the Defendant

had one prior "write up", (leaving keys in the office) which, by its own tenns had "expired", as
of the date in question. Plaintiff was told by Repass and Linnel that her employment was
tenninated, effective immediately,. and gave false reasons for the discharge.
9.

Plaintiff was told by the Defendant representatives, Repass, and Linnel that the

Defendant failed to complete deposit records properly, and failed to follow correct procedures on
damaged goods, and that Plaintiff spent time on Facebook, instead of working. They also
claimed that the safe had been left open. and blamed Plaintiff for it.
10.

The Defendants' representatives were unable to provide Plaintiff with any dates

on which these events allegedly occurred, and no documentation was provided to Plaintiff in this
regard. Plaintiff had never been written up or counseled on these items. While Plaintiff might
not have "signed off' on deposit fonns, she was never trained on the requirements, and was not
trained on how to handle damaged merchandise. The allegation concerning the use ofFacebook
was completely false, and the safe had a defect or problem, not the fault of the Plaintiff.
II.

Plaintiff asserts that the reasons given for her discharge are false or otherwise a

pretext to hide race discrimination. Other Caucasian employees have failed to follow procedures
and were not terminated from their employment.
12.

Plaintiff was discharged from her employment, and was replaced by a Caucasian

female.

3

t.;ase 4: 11-CV-UU;l;JtH:iWW uocument ;l-1

I- Ilea U;J/14/11

page 4 or 0

COUNT!.

CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WlTII CIVIL RIGHTS,

IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3)

13.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth here.

14.

Defendants have conspired within and between themselves as separate corporate

entities and individuals to segregate their employees, specifically, based on race. Through this
practice of racial segregation, Defendants have deprived a class of persons, including, but not
limited to. racial minorities and, in other instances, Caucasian employees, of equal protection of .
the laws, and of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, and have individually and in
concert acted in furtherance of that conspiracy.
15.

Plaintiffwas injured by Defendants' conspiracy in that she is a member of a

protected class and was deprived ofa property interest in her continued employment, in violation
of42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3).

16.

Plaintiff is entitled to damages, as set forth below.
COUNT II.

RACE DISCRIMINAnON, IN VIOLAnON OF TITLE VII

17.

Plaintiff incorporates each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if

set forth fully here. .
18.

Plaintiff is a black woman who was terminated from Defendant, because of her

race, and was replaced by Defendants by a less qualified Caucasian. Defendants' actions
constitute unlawful, intentional sex discrimination in violation ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights
Act, as amended.
19.

Plaintiff is entitled to darilages, as set forth below.
4

t;ase 4:1 l-CV-UUZ:Sti-::iVVVV uocument

~-1

t-llea UJ'14'1 1

t-'age b or 0

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a TRIAL BY JURY and that the following reli~fbe
granted: Plaintiff be awarded a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1981,42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended; this court enter a

permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in unlawful employment practices
in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981,42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; full
back pay from the date of Plaintiffs termination, taking into account all raises to which Plaintiff
would have been entitled but for her unlawful termination, and all fringe and pension benefits of
employment, with prejudgment interest; reinstatement to Plaintiffs former position with
Defendants, or, in the alternative, front pay to compensate Plaintiff for lost future wages,
benefits, and pension; Plaintiff have and recover compensatory damages; Plaintiff have and
recover punitive damages; Plaintiff have and recover liquidated damages in an additional amount
equal to her back pay and benefits; Plaintiffhave and recover damages occasioned by
Defendants' conspiracy, since she was deprived of property interests pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. §
1985(3); Plaintiff have and recover her attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and such other and
further relief that this Court or the finder of fact deems equitable and just.
Dated: March 14,2011.
ANGELA LEE, Plaintiff

Angela Lee~ Pro Se
3800N.27t

F:i 72904
.~A&
Arkansas

Angela ee

5

Case 4:11-cv-00236-SWW Document 18

Filed 06/14/11

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

ANGELA M. LEE,

*
*

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.
LIMITED BRANDS STORE OPERATIONS,
INC. and VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES
LLC,

Defendants.

No. 4:11CV00236 SWW

*
*
*

*
*

*
*

Memorandum and Order
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this complaint alleging race discrimination in
employment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss to which plaintiff failed to timely respond.
Plaintiff alleges she was employed by Victoria's Secret Stores LLC ("VSS") at its
location in McCain Mall in North Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition to VSS, plaintiff sues
Limited Brands Store Operations, Inc. ("LBSO"), alleging VSS and LBSO are "joint employers
or an integrated enterprise within the meaning of Title VII." Compl. at, 2. Defendants move
for dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against LBSO for failure to state a claim for relief. They also
move for dismissal ofplaintiffs conspiracy claim.
In deciding whether plaintiff states a claim, the Court must determine whether she has
pleaded facts with enough specificity "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint cannot simply "[leave] open the

possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some 'set of undisclosed facts' to support
recovery." !d. at 561 (citation omitted). Rather, the facts set forth in the complaint must be

Case 4: 11-cv-00236-SWW Document 18

Filed 06/14/11

Page 2 of 3

sufficient to "nudge the ... claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Id. at 570.
To determine whether a joint employer relationship exists in a Title VII case, a court
must consider four factors: (I) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3)
centralized control oflabor relations; and (4) common ownership or financial control. Baker v.

Stuart Broad. Co., 560 F.2d 389, 391 (8th Cir.1977); Sandoval v. American Bldg. Maintenance
Indus., Inc., 578 F.3d 787, 793 (8 th Cir. 2009). Because plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to
support her claim that LBSO was her employer or that LBSO and VSS are "joint employers" or
an "integrated enterprise," the Court finds her claims against LBSO should be dismissed.
Defendants also move for the dismissal of plaintiff's conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1985(3). Plaintiff alleges defendants "conspired within and between themselves as separate
corporate entities and individuals to segregate their employees, specifically, based on race."
Compl. at, 14. The Court finds that even ifLBSO were a proper defendant, the intracorporate
conspiracy doctrine bars claims against organizations that are part of the same corporate
structure. See Bondv. IMFS, Inc., 727 F.2d 770, 771 (8 th Cir. 1984)('" [I]f the challenged
conduct is essentially a single act of discrimination by a single business entity, the fact that two
or more agents participated in the decision or in the act itself will not normally constitute the
conspiracy contemplated by [§ 1985(3)]"'). Further, plaintiff fails to allege facts to support the
existence of a "conspiracy" between LBSO and VSS. She alleges only that agents of the same
corporation conspired to cause her termination. Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a finding that
there was a "meeting of the minds" between LBSO and VSS to terminate her employmemt.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against LBSO are dismissed, and
plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) is dismissed.

Case 4:11-cv-00236-SWW Document 18

Filed 06/14/11

Page 3 of 3

DATED this 14th day of June, 2011.

Is/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 4:11-cv-00236-SWW Document 38

Filed 03/02112 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

EASTERN DISTRlCT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

ANGELA M. LEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LIMITED BRANDS STORE OPERATIONS, .
INC. and VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES
LLC,

Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

No. 4:11CV00236 SWW

Memorandum and Order

Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with the order of this Court. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion. I
By previous Order the Court informed the plaintiff of her responsibility to be familiar and
comply with all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this Court.
The Court told her that failure to comply with the rules could result in dismissal of her claim. 2
On January 12,2102, the Court directed plaintiff to immediately respond to defendant's
discovery requests and provide defendant with dates for a deposition. The Court again warned
her that failure to abide by the Court's Order could result in dismissal of her case. According to
defendant, pJaintifffailed to comply with the Court's discovery order, and the record reflects
plaintiff did not file a response to any of the defendants' previous motions or participate in the

ILocal Rule 7 .2(b) requires that within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of copies of a
motion and supporting papers, a party opposing the motion must file a response to the motion.

2See docket entry 5.

Case 4: 11-cv-00236-SWW Document 38

Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2

Rule 26(f) conference.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that a party appearing pro se has the duty to prosecute her
action diligently. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b) provides that if a plaintiff fails to
prosecute or comply court orders, the defendant may move for dismissal. Under Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(b)(2)(v), one of the available sanctions for a party's failure to comply with a discovery order
is dismissal of the action. Because the plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case and failed to
comply with the Court's January 2012 Order, the Court finds that her complaint should be
dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss [docket entry 37] is
granted. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment will be entered
accordingl y.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2012.

IslSusan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE

2

Case 4:11-cv-00236-SWW Document 39

Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

ANGELA M. LEE,
Plaintiff,

vs.
LIMITED BRANDS STORE OPERA TlONS,
INC. and VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES
LLC,

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

No.4: 11 CV00236 SWW

*

*
*
*

Defendants.

JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Memorandum and Order entered in this matter on this day, and the
Memorandum and Order entered in this matter on June 14, 2011, it is CONSIDERED,
ORDERED, and ADJUDGED that this complaint be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 2 nd day of March 2012.

IslSusan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE