Bockman v. T & B Concepts of Carrboro, LLC

MEGAN L. BOCKMAN, Plaintiff, v. T & B CONCEPTS OF CARRBORO, LLC,d/b/a THE HICKORY TAVERN, et al., Defendants.

1:19CV622

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

September 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OSTEEN, JR., District Judge

This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Megan L. Bockman's Complaint for Title VII and state law violations. (Doc. 6.) Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Id.) For the reasons set forth herein, this court will deny in part and grant in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

Plaintiff resides in Lee County, North Carolina. (Complaint ("Compl.") (Doc. 1) ¶ 1.)

Defendants T & B Concepts of Carrboro, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Hickory, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Holly Springs, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Parkside, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Stratford, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; and T & B Concepts of Sun Valley, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern, are businesses organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina with Brad E. Smith as registered agent and a principal office located at 13900 Conlan Circle, Suite 240, Charlotte, NC 28277-0675. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 7, 9, 12, 16-17.)

Defendants T & B Concepts of Biltmore, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Birkdale, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Harris, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Hoffman Village, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Mallard Creek, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Mooresville, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Pinehurst, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Providence, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Steelecroft, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; T & B Concepts of Toringdon, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern; and T & B Concepts of Wesley Chapel, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern, are businesses organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina with Thomas A. Hager as registered agent and a principal office located at 13900 Conlan Circle,Suite 240, Charlotte, NC 28277-0675. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19)

Defendant T & B Management, LLC, d/b/a The Hickory Tavern, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina with Thomas A. Hager as registered agent, a principal office located at 13900 Conlan Circle, Suite 240, Charlotte, NC 28277-0675, and which does business in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. (Id. ¶ 3.)

B. Factual Background

On a motion to dismiss, a court must "accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint . . . ." Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016)).

Although a motion to dismiss "tests the sufficiency of a complaint," Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 116 (4th Cir. 2013), and this court's evaluation is "thus generally limited to a review of the allegations of the complaint itself," Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016), this court may consider documents that are incorporated into the complaint by reference where the document is integral to the complaint, see id. at 166, and the plaintiff does not challenge the documents' authenticity, see Phillips v. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999); see alsoNorman v. Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d 575, 580 (M.D.N.C. 2003) ("The underlying concern in cases applying this rule is to protect a plaintiff who might not have notice of (and an opportunity to fully respond to) facts newly introduced by the defendant in conjunction with motion of dismissal."). Other courts within the Fourth Circuit have considered Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charges attached to motions to dismiss, where plaintiffs relied on those documents in their complaints and did not contest the exhibits' authenticity. See, e.g., Alexander v. City of Greensboro, No. 1:09-CV-934, 2011 WL 13857, at *6-8 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2011); Cohen v. Sheehy Honda of Alexandria, Inc., No. 1:06cv441 (JCC), 2006 WL 1720679, at *2 (E.D. Va. June. 19, 2006) (finding the EEOC charge was integral to complaint because plaintiff "would have been unable to file a civil action without first filing such a charge").

This court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint incorporates by reference Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination to the EEOC, which Defendants attached as an exhibit to their Memorandum inSupport of their Motion to Dismiss. (Charge of Discrimination ("EEOC Charge") (Doc. 7-1) at 2-3.)¹

First, the Charge of Discrimination is integral to Plaintiff's Complaint. The same incidents form the basis for the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint and the Charge of Discrimination, (compare Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 29-65, with EEOC Charge (Doc. 7-1) at 2-3), and this court's jurisdiction is predicated on Plaintiff having filed the Charge of Discrimination and received a Right to Sue Letter, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(5)(f) et seq. Plaintiff's Complaint establishes that Plaintiff "timely submitted a charge of employment discrimination on the basis of retaliation, sex, and disability" to the EEOC and "[o]n March 22, 2019, the EEOC issued to Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights to sue." (Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶ 28.)

Second, Plaintiff does not challenge the authenticity of the Charge of Discrimination. Plaintiff refers to the Charge of Discrimination in her Complaint, (see id.), and in support of her arguments in her Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants'Motion to Dismiss, (see, e.g., Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Resp.") (Doc. 11), at 9, 11.) Although Plaintiff did not attach the Charge of Discrimination to her Complaint, Plaintiff did attach the EEOC's ensuing Dismissal and Notice of Rights. (Compl. (Doc. 1) at 18.)

Defendants cite allegations in the Charge of Discrimination in their Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss. (See e.g., Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Br.") (Doc. 7) at 9.) In her response, Plaintiff does not object to consideration of these facts. (See Pl.'s Resp. (Doc. 11) at 9, 11.)

In the absence of any objection, this court will consider the allegations in the Complaint to incorporate those in the Charge of Discrimination, and the facts contained therein will be considered part of Plaintiff's Complaint, to the extent that Plaintiff has satisfied requirements for administrative exhaustion. (See discussion infra Section III.B.2.)

The facts, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, are as follows.

Plaintiff is a woman who worked for Defendants between August 2015 and April 2018 (Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 30, 60, 65; EEOC Charge (Doc. 7-1) at 2.) She alleges she interviewed for her original position with Human Resources representative, KathieRay, in Charlotte, North Carolina, and with Shelly Walters. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges she initially began by working with Defendant T & B Concepts of Sun Valley, d/b/a Hickory Tavern ("HT-Sun Valley") in Sun Valley, North Carolina, (id.), but moved several times for managerial training, after which, in August 2016, she was placed at Defendant T & B Concepts of Carrboro, d/b/a Hickory Tavern ("HT-Carrboro") in Carrboro, North Carolina, (id.) Plaintiff alleges she never interviewed or completed new hire paperwork at any subsequent Hickory Tavern location after she left HT-Sun Valley. (Id. ¶ 31.)

Plaintiff alleges she relocated to Carrboro to provide for her son, who she alleges is disabled. (Id. ¶ 32.) When she began working at HT-Carrboro, there were not any "key manager" roles available, so she alleges she was demoted. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges she was "given assurance of a promotion when something became available." (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that three days after she began her employment at HT-Carrboro, another employee, Brandon Penny, "verbally assaulted" Plaintiff after General Manager Brent Wall asked Plaintiff to help Mr. Penny with the grill. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) Plaintiff alleges another employee, Michael Baldwin, had to step in between Plaintiff and Mr. Penny and remind Mr. Penny that Plaintiff was a woman. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges Mr.Wall learned of the situation and sat down with Plaintiff and Mr. Penny to "advise them that they needed to figure out how to work together." (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff alleges no disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Penny. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that in or around October 2016, Mr. Penny and Plaintiff were promoted to "Key Manager." (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff alleges Mr. Penny continued to "verbally assault" Plaintiff, as well as other staff members. (Id. ¶ 38.)

In or around November 2016, Plaintiff alleges she asked Manager Justin Dreaver whether employees would be paid before or after Thanksgiving "so that she could best plan to provide for herself and her disabled son." (Id. ¶ 39.) Mr. Dreaver allegedly said, "That sucks, but I don't know. Maybe you should learn how to plan better for the future." (Id. ¶ 40.)

In or around January 2017, Plaintiff alleges she was asked to take a management position after Mr. Wall "was intoxicated on the job; took beer from behind the bar; stood on a table; and broke a flat screen TV by kicking it." (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff alleges the position entitled her to make "salary pay," but she instead was compensated at a much lower hourly rate. (Id. ¶ 42.)

In or around March 2017, Plaintiff alleges Mr. Penny was arrested for cocaine and marijuana possession while purchasing food for the company. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff alleges Defendantsdid not discipline Mr. Penny, but instead, allowed him to return to work. (Id.)

In or around May 2017, Plaintiff alleges she requested vacation leave from General Manager Rodney Huskins. Mr. Huskins allegedly denied her request, stating that "he needed to take...