Prudhomme v. Masonite Corp.

Filing 24

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss ; denying as moot in part and denying without prejudice in part 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/13/2014. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00275-FDW-DCK
JESSICA PRUDHOMME,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MASONITE CORPORATON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Masonite Corporation’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 11). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings is
DENIED in part as moot and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 13, 2013, in this Court alleging one claim for
relief of sex/gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000
et seq. (“Title VII”). (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is a female and former employee of Defendant.
Plaintiff asserts that she was hired to work as a Packaging Engineering Specialist by
Defendant on May 16, 2011. While employed, Jeff Woollens was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor.
Plaintiff was the only female assigned to his team.

1

Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment Mr. Woollens made comments about
her sexuality.

Plaintiff further asserts that Mr. Woollens made repeated statements about

Plaintiff in the male gender as opposed to the female gender and permitted others to make similar
statements in his presence.
Plaintiff alleges, as an example, that during a meeting with Mr. Woollens and a coworker
identified as “JT,” “JT said something to [the] effect about Plaintiff’s masculinity/femininity.”
Plaintiff asserts that the comment was offensive, and Mr. Woollens took no action. Plaintiff also
claims that during another meeting, JT told Plaintiff that being a female in their department and
hanging out with other female employees would damage her career.
Plaintiff alleges that while traveling on a business trip with Mr. Woollens and another
male co-worker on March 23, 2012, Mr. Woollens became extremely upset with Plaintiff after
she inquired about an email she had sent other co-workers about her concerns on a project.
Plaintiff claims that Mr. Woollens proceeded to pull over the car rental car he was driving, walk
around to where she was seated in the rear passenger side, and yell profane insults at her.
Plaintiff asserts that during this incident she remained in the car because she feared for her safety
and was shocked that Mr. Woollens invaded her personal space in such a manner.
After returning from the trip, Plaintiff alleges she told other employees and managers
about this incident. Plaintiff further asserts that upon learning this, Mr. Woollens fired her and
stated that the reason for her termination was her “bad attitude.” Plaintiff claims that this reason
was a pretext and that she was actually fired because (1) she rejected Mr. Woollens’ sexual
advances and (2) she had started the process for reporting him for the incident during the
business trip.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Human Resources Department ratified the

decision to terminate Plaintiff.

2

On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. On January
30, 2013, the EEOC issued a notice of the right to sue to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1-1).
Plaintiff filed this action on May 30, 2013, alleging one claim for sex discrimination in
violation of Title VII. (Doc. No. 1). In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts three basis for this single
claim: (1) hostile work environment, (2) failure to promote, and (3) discriminatory discharge. Id.
For the purposes of organization and clarity, the Court will treat each asserted basis as a separate
claim for relief.
On October 9, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s hostile work
environment and failure to promote claims for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a Motion
for a Judgment on the Pleadings for all claims, (Doc. No. 11), and a Memorandum in Support of
the Motions.

(Doc. No. 11-1).

With the Court’s leave, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in

Opposition to Defendant’s Motions on December 6, 2013. (Doc. No. 18). Finally, Defendant
filed a Reply on December 16, 2013. (Doc. No. 19).
PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1)
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides grounds for dismissal if
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim. “[T]he party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 104 (1989); see also Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir.
1999).
Defendant asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs hostile
work environment and failure to promote claims because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies for these claims. (Doc. No. 11-1). Before filing a suit under Title VII, a

3

plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the
EEOC. See Syndor v. Fairfax Cnty., 681 F.3d 591, 593 (4th Cir. 2012); Jones v. Calvert Group,
Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009). The scope of the federal lawsuit is limited by the
contents of the EEOC charge. Jones, 551 F. 3d at 300 (citing Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288
F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002)). “Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge,
those reasonably related to the original complaint, and those developed by reasonable
investigation of the original complaint may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit.” Id.
at 300 (quoting Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 963 (4th Cir. 1996)).
Claims that fall outside of the scope of the EEOC charge are procedurally barred. Balas v.
Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 408 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Chacko v. Patuxent
Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 509 (4th Cir. 2005)). Therefore, the issue is whether the abovementioned
claims alleging a hostile work environment and a failure to promote in Plaintiff’s Complaint
were stated in the EEOC charge, were reasonably related to the assertions in the charge, or would
be discovered by reasonable investigation of the assertions in the charge.
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
With respect to the hostile work environment claim, Plaintiff’s EEOC charge, in pertinent
part, alleged that “[t]hroughout the duration of [her] employment, she ha[s] been told by
management to be more submissive, that [she] can be very manly and ballsy, and [she] need[s] to
work on changing the perception [her] co-workers have about [her] and any perceived lack of
feminity.” (Doc. No. 11-2). However, Plaintiff’s Complaint expands on the alleged harassing
conduct that supports her hostile work environment claim asserted in her charge. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that her co-workers also made offensive comments to Plaintiff regarding her
gender in Mr. Woollens’ presence throughout her employment.

4

Upon review, this Court finds that the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s EEOC charge
and in her subsequent complaint are reasonably related. Plaintiff asserts the same central factual
allegations, that Plaintiff was subject to verbal harassment based on her gender throughout her
employment by Mr. Woollens, in both her EEOC charge and Complaint. Plaintiff’s allegations
that she was also verbally harassed by her co-workers under Mr. Woollens’ supervision is
reasonably related to her assertions that Mr. Woollens verbally harassed Plaintiff and afforded
Defendant amply notice of the allegations against it. See Sydnor, 681 F.3d at 595. Accordingly,
the Court holds that Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to her
hostile work environment claim.
FAILURE TO PROMOTE CLAIM
With respect to her failure to promote claim, Plaintiff notified the Court and Defendant
that she was abandoning her failure to promote claim in her Memorandum in Opposition. (Doc.
No. 18) Accordingly, the Court considers this claim abandoned and denies Defendant’s Motion
as moot for this claim.
MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Defendant next moves for a judgment on the pleadings for all claims asserted by Plaintiff.
With respect to Plaintiff’s claim for failure to promote, the Court has already noted that Plaintiff
has abandoned this claim. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion as moot for this
claim.
Upon review by the Court, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings is denied
without prejudice with respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment and discriminatory
discharge claims. Defendant is free to raise the issues set forth in the Motion for these claims
again at summary judgment.

5

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint, (Doc. No. 11), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings,
(Doc. No. 11), is DENIED AS MOOT IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN
PART. Specifically, the Motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to
promote claim, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work
environment and discriminatory discharge claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 13, 2014

6