Charter v. Waterford Marriot Hotel et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 13 Renewed Motion of Defendants IPROCOKC, LLC, and TPG Hospitality, Inc., to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State of Claim. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 6/14/12. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WHITNEY CHARTER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WATERFORD MARRIOT HOTEL, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-12-331-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed the present action asserting claims of sexual harassment. Relevant to
the present motion, Plaintiff asserts Title VII claims against Defendants IPOK Oklahoma
City HR, LLC (“IPOK”); IPROCOKC, LLC, (“IPROCOKC”); and TPG Hospitality, Inc.
(“TPG”). Defendant IPOK has answered and admitted to being Plaintiff’s employer.
Defendants IPROCOKC and TPG filed the present Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) asserting that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief.
Specifically, IPROCOKC and TPG argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts which
demonstrate that they were her employer for Title VII liability.
In the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007),
and the subsequent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Court made clear
that to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact which
taken as true “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
That is, a plaintiff must “nudge[] [her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible”

in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. After consideration of the parties’ positions and
the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has satisfied this
standard.
The relevant elements for determining joint liability have been established by the
Tenth Circuit:
Title VII case law recognizes that two separate entities may be a worker’s
employer if they share or codetermine matters governing the essential terms
and conditions of the worker’s employment. When a worker is formally
employed by one organization, but important aspects of his work are subject
to control by another organization, both organizations are employers of the
worker. An independent entity with sufficient control over the terms and
conditions of the employment of a worker formally employed by another is a
joint employer within the scope of Title VII.
Sizova v. Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1330 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Zinn v. McKune, 143 F.3d 1353, 1361 (10th Cir. 1998) (Briscoe, J., concurring)). Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint makes allegations as to each Defendant. As to Defendant
IPROCOKC, Plaintiff alleges:
12. The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants, TPG HOSPITALITY
a/k/a The Procaccianti Group, IPOK OKLAHOMA CITY HR, LLC and
IPROCOKC, LLC (“IPROCOKC”) a/k/a IPROC OKC HR, LLC d/b/a
Waterford Marriott Hotel, and began working for these Defendants on or
around May 5, 2011. Each of the Defendants demonstrated their joint
employment of the Plaintiff in the following manner:
...
(b) IPROCOKC, LLC (“IPROCOKC”) a/k/a IPROC OKC HR, LLC is
listed as the franchisee of Marriott International in the Franchise
agreement. The Franchise Agreement provides that “[a]ll employees
of the Franchisee are solely employees of the Franchisee, not

2

Franchisor”. IPROCOKC, LLC also owns the land that the Waterford
Marriott resides on.
(Dkt. No. 8).
The quoted language alleges that Plaintiff was jointly employed by IPROCOKC and
the other Defendants. Paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Complaint also alleges that
IPROCOKC owns and operates the Waterford Hotel jointly with the other Defendants. This
allegation, combined with ¶ 12(b) set forth above, alleges that IPROCOKC agrees that the
employees of the Waterford are its employees. At this stage, these allegations are sufficient
to nudge the argument that IPROCOKC is a joint employer from conceivable to plausible.
As for TPG, Plaintiff’s allegations are as follows:
(c) The Plaintiff, the Defendant J. Melton, and all other employees of the
Waterford Marriott filled out applications with a TPG Hospitality letterhead.
All employee write ups for employee misconduct, including J. Melton and the
Plaintiff, have letterhead that states “TPG Hospitality Corrective Action
Form”. Additionally, all employees are required provided [sic] an employee
handbook produced and promulgated by TPG Hospitality. Employees of the
Waterford Marriott Hotel also fill out IRS forms that list The Procaccianti
Group as the employer.
(Dkt. No. 8, ¶ 12(c)). Thus, there is a non-conclusory allegation that important aspects of
Plaintiff’s work were controlled by TPG. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has pleaded
facts which plausibly show TPG was a joint employer.
Because the Court has found both Defendants are adequately pleaded as joint
employers, it is unnecessary to address the single employer test.

3

For the reasons set forth herein, the Renewed Motion of Defendants IPROCOKC,
LLC, and TPG Hospitality, Inc., to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2012.

4