Ricks v. Plastic Industries, Inc.
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
LISALYN RICKS
Case No. 4:15-cv-572-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
v.
PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, an Idaho
Corporation.
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Plastic Industries,
Inc. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court
will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Ricks claims that she was forced to quit her job due to sexual
discrimination in violation of Title VII. More specifically, she alleges that she was
subjected to a hostile work environment based on her gender, and was the victim of
retaliation by her employer – defendant Plastic Industries – when she complained. She
also brings a state law claim, alleging that Plastic Industries was negligent in hiring,
retaining, and failing to supervise Kelly Pilgrim, who worked with Ricks and allegedly
harassed her.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1
Plastic Industries asks the Court to dismiss each claim, arguing that the
complaint’s allegations are insufficient as a matter of law. The Court will examine the
sufficiency of each claim below.
Hostile Work Environment
In her complaint, Ricks claims to be the victim of a hostile work environment,
based on her gender. Ricks alleges that Kelly Pilgrim repeatedly asked her for dates and
for sex despite her rejection of those advances. She also alleges that Pilgrim: (1) called
female workers and women in general “nasty, stinky” or “nasty, dirty” “c**ts;”; (2) said
women are “whores” who want to perform sexual favors to get ahead; (3) told Ricks he
had pornography on his phone and computer and asked if she did too; and (4) told her
women wore makeup to work to get men to have sex with them. Ricks knew that Pilgrim
had been found guilty of felony aggravated assault on his ex-wife, and Ricks heard
Pilgrim refer to his ex-wife and say that “I should have pulled the trigger on that
f******g b***h and killed her.” On another occasion, Pilgrim walked past Ricks,
mimicking a gun with his hand and saying “pop, pop, pop . . . .” Pilgrim physically
cornered Ricks and threatened to bring a lawsuit against her for spreading rumors about
him.
Ricks alleges that she complained about harassment on at least four different
occasions. The company’s response was inadequate, she alleges, and the harassment
continued.
The Court must assume that these factual allegations are true. Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556.
The allegations set forth above are sufficient to under Twombly to state a claim for
a hostile work environment that is plausible on its face. The motion to dismiss this claim
will be denied.
Retaliation
Ricks alleges in her complaint that she complained about harassment on at least
four different occasions prior to her constructive discharge. The company’s response, she
alleges, was to write her up for complaining, isolate her from her co-workers who were
urged to file complaints about her, subject her to ongoing harassment, and ultimately
force her to resign for her sanity and safety. According to Ricks, these retaliatory actions
began immediately after she lodged her complaint with the Human Resources
Department and Pilgrim was rehired at the Plant.
The allegations set forth above are sufficient to under Twombly to state a claim for
retaliation under Title VII that is plausible on its face. The motion to dismiss this claim
will be denied.
Negligent Retention/Rehiring
In this case, Ricks alleges that she suffered severe and significant emotional
distress, and was forced to resign, because of Plastic Industries’ negligence in exercising
due care to protect her from foreseeable tortious acts of Pilgrim. She specifically alleges
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3
that she suffered severe emotional distress causing symptoms that were both emotional
and physical. She alleges that these injuries were a result of not only the negligent hiring
of Pilgrim but also the negligent failure to supervise him, and the negligent rehiring of
him after he had been fired.
The allegations set forth above are sufficient to under Twombly to state a claim for
negligent hiring and retention. The motion to dismiss this claim will be denied.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to dismiss
(docket no. 12) is DENIED.
DATED: September 24, 2016
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?