Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., CIV. A. 3:99-CV-1339.

95 F.Supp.2d 255

Lynn CORTES, Plaintiff, v. R.I. ENTERPRISES, INC., R.I. Associates, Jerry and Frances Warsky, all defendants d/b/a Cristallo Steak House and Jasmine's Lounge, Defendants.

No. CIV. A. 3:99-CV-1339.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

April 18, 2000.

Susan E. Stokes, Sprenger & Lang, Minneapolis, MN, Michael D. Lieder, Sprenger & Lang, Washington, DC, Joseph T. Wright, Jr., Wright & Associates, Scranton, for Lynn Cortes, plaintiff.

Alexia Kita Blake, Hourigan Kluger Spohrer & Quinn, PC, Morey M. Myers, Donna A. Walsh, Myers Brier & Kelly, LLP, Scranton, Daniel Thomas Brier, Myers Brier & Kelly, LLP, for R.I. Enterprises, Inc., R.I. Associates, defendants.

MEMORANDUM

CAPUTO, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Lynn Cortes, commenced this action with the filing of a complaint alleging sexual harassment, on July 28, 1999. The complaint asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (the "PHRA"), 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 951, et seq.

Presently before the Court are the motions, filed November 9, 1999, of defendants R.I. Associates and Jerry and Frances Warsky to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and of Defendant R.I. Enterprises, Inc. for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint or, in the Alternative, Motion to Strike. (Docs. 3 & 4.) Although the defendants have filed two separate motions, the memorandums filed in support of the motions advance identical arguments which warrant unified discussion in this Memorandum Opinion.¹ The motions will be granted in part and denied in part as set forth below.

I BACKGROUND

In a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the pertinent facts alleged in the complaint are as follows. Plaintiff, a woman in her twenties, was employed as a waitress at the Ramada Plaza Hotel in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, from April until August 1995 and again during part of the summer of 1996. The restaurant and bar at the hotel where she worked were known, respectively, as Cristallo Steak House and Jasmine's Lounge.

A. Parties

Defendant R.I. Associates was plaintiff's employer. The complaint alleges that defendants Jerry and Frances Warsky were also plaintiff's employer; they were the sole partners of R.I. Associates during the relevant time period and also the sole shareholders of R.I. Enterprises, Inc., which entity operated Cristallo Steak House and Jasmine's Lounge. The complaint further alleges that defendant R.I. Enterprises, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, was operated solely as a shell corporation to protect R.I. Associates and Jerry and Frances Warsky from liability.

B. Procedural History

On or about March 26, 1999, plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The charge was assigned a charge number and plaintiff received a notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC dated April 30, 1999. Under the work-sharing agreement between the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"), plaintiff's charge was automatically cross-filed with the PHRC.

Plaintiff's lawsuit was preceded by two related actions, brought by other former waitresses at the Ramada Inn's restaurant and bar. On September 6, 1995, Jessica Hoffman filed an EEOC charge against the defendants named herein, alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. She amended that charge on May 5, 1996 and filed a federal complaint, captioned Jessica Hoffman, and all others similarly situated v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Ramada Inn, d/b/a/ Cristallo Steak House (M.D.Pa.Civ.A. No. 3:96-CV-1956) pursuant to that EEOC charge on November 1, 1996. A motion for class certification was denied by the district court on February 2, 1999.

Connie Bailey filed an EEOC charge on January 28, 1997 alleging class-wide sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against the defendants named herein and others. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in federal court, captioned Connie Bailey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc. R.I. Associates, Jerry and Francis Warsky, Ramesh T. Joshi and Ketan R. Joshi, all defendants d/b/a Ramada Plaza Hotel D/B/A Cristallo Steak House and Jasmine's Lounge (M.D.Pa.Civ.A. No. 3:97-CV-1036).

C. Discriminatory Practices

Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to a continuous pattern of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation throughout the entire period of her employment at defendants' premises. She alleges that defendants' supervisors and managers created and condoned a work environment that was hostile to plaintiff and other female employees. Male employees, allegedly with the knowledge of management, made vulgar, obscene, threatening, demeaning and discriminatory statements to plaintiff and other women because of their sex. Plaintiff alleges that she and other women were subjected to unwelcome verbal and sexual advances and that defendants retaliated against plaintiff and other women for refusing to acquiesce to these unwelcome demands and/or for complaining about the conduct.

Plaintiff alleges that she was forced to leave her job in August 1995 because she could no longer withstand the hostile work environment created and condoned by Restaurant Manager Richard Wolf, Chef Scott Hastings, Hotel Manager Chris Deegan, and other male employees, and because she felt especially vulnerable and unable to cope with this work environment as a pregnant woman. She alleges that she was healthy and would have remained at work through her pregnancy but for the allegedly sexually hostile work environment.

Plaintiff returned to work about one year after she left, after learning that Wolf was no longer the restaurant manager and that Hastings was no longer the chef. Plaintiff left her job at the Ramada again when she learned that Wolf would be returning from a leave of absence in the fall. The complaint states that plaintiff left her employment approximately two weeks before Wolf was scheduled to return to his position, and that if management had not allowed Wolf to return, plaintiff would have remained in her job at the restaurant.

II DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Defendants bring their motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (to dismiss) and 12(f) (to strike).

1. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must view all allegations made in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir.1994). Furthermore, "`a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).

The court is not, however, required to credit or lend credence to "`bald assertions'" or "`legal conclusions.'" Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir.1997)). In ruling on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion, courts can and should reject "`legal conclusions,'" "`unsupported conclusions,'" "`unwarranted inferences,'" "`unwarranted deductions,'" "`footless conclusions of law,'" and "`sweeping legal conclusions in the form of factual allegations.'" Id. at 906 n. 8 (quoting CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 1357 (2d ed.1997)). In addition, "`legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.'" Id. (quoting Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1993)); See also Pennsylvania House, Inc. v. Barrett, 760 F.Supp. 439, 449-50 (M.D.Pa.1991).

2. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

B. Analysis

Defendants move the Court to dismiss plaintiff's claim for relief under the PHRA because, they assert, Cortes failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by the PHRA. In the alternative, defendant R.I. Enterprises, Inc. moves to strike plaintiff's request for punitive damages and demand for a jury trial under the PHRA. Defendants also move the Court to dismiss portions of plaintiff's complaint brought under Title VII falling outside the applicable statute of limitations because, they assert, these claims are not timely under the statute of limitations and are not covered by the continuing violation theory.

1. Timely Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies under the PHRA

Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss plaintiff's PHRA claim because plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies under the PHRA. The PHRA mandates that "[a]ny complaint filed pursuant to this section must be so filed within one hundred eighty days after the alleged act of discrimination ...." 43 P.S. § 959(h); see also 16 Pa. Code § 42.14 ("The complaint shall be filed within 180 days from the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice ....") In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination on March 26, 1999, more than two and one half years after the last alleged discriminatory act, which occurred no later than September 1, 1996, the date on which plaintiff terminated her employment with R.I. Enterprises. Defendants argue that because plaintiff filed her charge more than 180 days after the...