Garrett v. Aegis Communications Group, LLC

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Leave to Amend is granted and DIRECTS the Clerk to file Gar rett's Amended Complaint; Defendant's 38 Partial Motion to Dismiss is granted and dismisses with prejudice Garrett's claim against Aegis for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 7/21/14. (cnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

FANNIE GARRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-131
(Judge Keeley)

AEGIS COMMUNITY GROUP, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 38]
Pending before the Court is the motion for leave to amend
filed by the plaintiff, Fannie Garrett (“Garrett”) (dkt. no. 44),
and the partial motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Aegis
Community Group, LLC (“Aegis”) (dkt. no. 38). For the reasons that
follow, the Court GRANTS Garrett’s motion for leave to amend and
GRANTS Aegis’s partial motion to dismiss.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
Garrett was hired by Aegis on August 2, 2010, as a customer
service representative at its Bridgeport, West Virginia office.
Shortly thereafter, Garrett began complaining of difficulty reading

1

The material facts in this case are largely undisputed and
the Court has considered all inferences to be drawn from the facts
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Matsushita
Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 574, 574
(1986).

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
her computer screen as a result of a vision impairment.2

On

September 3, 2010, Aegis provided Garrett with a larger computer
monitor, which Garrett found to be inadequate.

Garrett then

requested a new computer monitor from Linda Bittle (“Bittle”), the
Human Resources Representative at Aegis.

Bittle denied Garrett’s

request on September 16, 2009, and Garrett voluntarily resigned
from her position with Aegis that same day.
Garrett subsequently initiated this action on May 1, 2013,
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the
West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”).

Her complaint alleges

that Aegis violated the ADA and the WVHRA, and negligently and
intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her by denying her
request for an accommodation for her impaired vision.
On December 12, 2013, Aegis filed a partial motion to dismiss
Garrett’s

negligent

and

intentional

distress claims. (Dkt. No. 44).

infliction

of

emotional

Garrett then moved to amend her

complaint on January 8, 2014, to which she attached a proposed
amended complaint.

(Dkt. No. 38).

Both motions are now fully

briefed and ripe for review.

2

Garrett alleges that she suffers from diabetes and, as a
result, has diminished eyesight.
2

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A.

Motions to Amend
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that when a party seeks leave to amend a complaint, “leave shall be
freely given when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962); see also Ward Elec. Serv. v. First Commercial
Bank, 819 F.2d 496, 497 (4th Cir. 1987).

Motions to amend are to

be liberally granted in the absence of a declared reason “such as
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to
the opposing party, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman, 371 U.S. at
182.
With respect to amended complaints, “[t]he general rule . . .
is that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading,
rendering the original pleading of no effect.

Thus, if an amended

complaint omits claims raised in the original complaint, the
plaintiff has waived those omitted claims.” Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 574 (4th Cir. 2001).
B. Motions to Dismiss
To survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P.

12(b)(6),

a

complaint

must
3

contain

factual

allegations

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 550
U.S.

544,

557

(2007).

“The

plausibility

standard

requires

a

plaintiff to demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. It requires the plaintiff to
articulate

facts,

when

adopted

as

true,

that

show

that

the

plaintiff has stated a claim entitling him to relief, i.e., the
plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588
F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). While
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements” will not suffice (Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678), the Court must consider all well-pled factual
allegations in a complaint as true and construe them in the light
most

favorable

to

the

plaintiff.

Nemet

Chevrolet,

Ltd.

v.

Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009).
Although the Court must accept factual allegations in a
complaint as true, this “tenet . . . is inapplicable to legal
conclusions.” Id. Thus, a complaint may be dismissed when the facts
alleged clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff has not stated a
claim and is not entitled to relief. 5B Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 at 344-45
4

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
(3d ed. 2007). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief . . . requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Garrett’s Motion For Leave to Amend
Garrett seeks leave to amend her complaint in order to cure
defective pleadings, add newly-discovered facts, and withdraw her
negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

The Court finds

no prejudice to Aegis by allowing the amendment; the nature of
Garrett’s claims and her underlying theories have not changed, and
discovery has not yet closed.

Thus, in the interest of affording

Garrett a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims, and in
light of the generous standard favoring amendments, the Court
grants Garrett’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.3

3

The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
any bases of recovery not re-alleged in the amended complaint are
waived. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 574 (4th Cir.
2001).
5

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
B. Aegis’s Partial Motion to Dismiss4
In its partial motion to dismiss, Aegis contends that Garrett
has failed to establish a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress.5

Garrett’s response is that her intentional

infliction of emotional distress claim is sufficiently plead.
Aegis presents the more persuasive argument.
Garrett’s amended complaint alleges that Aegis’s failure to
afford her reasonable accommodations based on her disability caused
her “severe and significant emotional distress.” (Dkt. No. 44-1).
To maintain an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim,
Garrett

must

establish

that

(1)

the

defendant’s

conduct

was

atrocious, intolerable, and so extreme and outrageous as to exceed
the bounds of decency; (2) the defendant acted with the intent to
inflict emotional distress, or acted recklessly when it was certain

4

The Court need not require Aegis to file a new motion to
dismiss “simply because an amended pleading was introduced while
[its] motion was pending.” 6 CHARLES A WRIGHT ET AL, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (3d ed. 2013). Because the “defects
raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the court
simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended
pleading.” Id. Accordingly, the Court extends Aegis’s motion to
dismiss to Garrett’s amended complaint.
5

It is unnecessary to address Aegis’s arguments related to
Garrett’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, as
Garrett withdrew this claim when she amended her complaint.
6

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
or substantially certain emotional distress would result from his
conduct; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to
suffer emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered
by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be
expected to endure it. Syl. pt. 2, Philyaw v. Eastern Associated
Coal Corp., 633 S.E.2d 8 (W. Va. 2006) (quoting Syl. pt. 3, Travis
v. Alcon Labs, Inc., 504 S.E.2d 419 (W. Va. 1998)).
Pursuant to the first element, requiring a showing that
Aegis’s conduct was atrocious, intolerable, and so extreme and
outrageous as to exceed the bounds of decency, “the defendant’s
actions ‘must be more than unreasonable, unkind or unfair; it must
truly offend community notions of acceptable conduct.’” Travis, 504
S.E.2d at 425 (quoting Grandchamp v. United Airlines, Inc., 854
F.2d 381, 383 (10th Cir. 1988)).
Garrett has not alleged facts indicating that Aegis’s behavior
was atrocious, intolerable, extreme, or outrageous.

Rather, her

allegations are based solely on the fact that Aegis failed to
sufficiently
monitor.

accommodate

her

requests

for

a

larger

computer

Such behavior does not rise to the level of being so

“atrocious, intolerable, or outrageous” that “it would cause the
kind of emotional upheaval that no reasonable person could be
7

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
expected to endure.” See Brown v. City of Fairmont, 221 W.Va. 541,
655 S.E.2d 563 (2007).
Furthermore, Garrett has not alleged facts indicating that
Aegis acted “with the intent to inflict emotional distress, or
acted recklessly when it was certain or substantially certain
emotional distress would result from [Aegis’] conduct.” Travis v.
Alcon Labs Inc., 202 W. Va. 369, 375 504 S.E.2d 419 (1998).

In

fact, from the facts alleged, it appears that Aegis attempted to
accommodate

Garrett

by

providing

her

with

a

larger

computer

monitor. Consequently, Garrett has failed to adequately establish
a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court:
1) GRANTS Garrett’s motion for leave to amend (dkt. no. 44);
2) DIRECTS the Clerk to file Garrett’s amended complaint
(dkt. no. 44-1);
3) GRANTS Aegis’s partial motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 38); and
4) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Garrett’s claim against Aegis for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

8

GARRETT v. AEGIS

1:13CV131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 44], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO 38]
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record.
DATED: July 21, 2014
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9