Doe v. Marriott Hotel Servs.

1

JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC Defendant.

C. A. No. 23-487 WES

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

May 17, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

William E. Smith District Judge.

Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks redress from her former employer -Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, LLC (“Marriott”) - after her work supervisor allegedly sexually assaulted her. Marriott now moves to dismiss Ms. Doe's clams for negligent hiring, training, and supervision. Specifically Marriott asserts that Ms. Doe cannot establish negligence claims because the alleged assault occurred outside of work and was committed by an employee with no prior record of violence. See Def.'s Partial Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7; Def.'s Mem. Law Supp. Partial Mot. Dismiss First Am. Compl. (“Def.'s Mem”) 5-12, ECF No. 8. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Marriott's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

This case arises from Ms. Doe's allegation that F.B., a senior Marriott employee who served as her direct supervisor, sexually assaulted her at a social gathering following her shift at the Newport Marriott. Approximately twenty years before the alleged assault, Marriott hired F.B. to work as a front desk agent at Marriott's hotel in Newport, Rhode Island. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 11, ECF No. 6. During his tenure, F.B. sexually harassed a housekeeper, which resulted in Marriott asking for his resignation. Id. ¶¶ 12-14. Sometime after his resignation, Marriott hired F.B. at the Patriots' Place Marriott. Id. ¶ 15. F.B. again sexually harassed a housekeeper, causing Marriott to again request his resignation. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.

Despite those incidents, in May 2021, Marriott rehired F.B. to serve in a supervisory role as the Newport Marriott's Director of Rooms. Id. ¶ 18. In making that decision, Marriott assumed that F.B. had “grown up” since his previous resignation. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Marriott did not train F.B. or take any other steps to ensure that he would not continue to act inappropriately toward female employees and guests. Id. ¶¶ 58-59.

During that same period, Marriott hired Ms. Doe to work the front desk at the Newport Marriott. Id. ¶ 5. Ms. Doe reported directly to F.B. Id. ¶ 6. During her tenure, F.B. acted inappropriately toward Ms. Doe - who was twenty years his junior - including telling her about his extra-marital affairs and heavy drinking, frequently asking her to get drinks, and regularly touching her. Id. ¶¶ 21-22, 24. Ms. Doe consistently rebuffed F.B.'s advances and reported his troubling conduct to her coworkers. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25. Nonetheless, because F.B. was her supervisor, Ms. Doe still had to regularly interact and work closely with him. Id. ¶ 23.

On March 24, 2022, F.B. invited Ms. Doe and several other Marriott employees, including Marriott's Director of Food and Beverage (“D.S.”), to a restaurant after work to celebrate his birthday. Id. ¶¶ 28-30. Ms. Doe, whose shift extended into the late evening, joined F.B. and the other employees at a bar after they had concluded dinner. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Almost immediately after Ms. Doe sat down at the table, F.B. suggested that Ms. Doe kiss another employee, D.S. She refused. Id. ¶ 31.

Later in the evening, Ms. Doe lost consciousness at the bar. Id. ¶ 32. Ms. Doe briefly regained consciousness to a harrowing sight - F.B. was raping her in her own bed. Id. ¶ 33. When she fully awoke the next morning, she found F.B., who was very intoxicated, still in her bed. Id. Ms. Doe reported the incident to Marriott executives, and following an investigation, Marriott terminated F.B. in April 2022.^[2] Id. ¶¶ 35-37.

Approximately a year and a half after the assault, Ms. Doe commenced this action, asserting claims against Marriott under Rhode Island law for negligent hiring, supervision, and training.^[3]She alleges that Marriott acted negligently by rehiring F.B., who it knew to be a heavy drinker with a track record of sexually harassing female employees. Id. ¶¶ 52-57. She further avers that, once Marriott rehired F.B., it failed to adequately supervise and train him by not taking steps to ensure that F.B. was not a threat to coworkers. Id. ¶¶ 58-59.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) test the plausibility of the claims in a plaintiff's complaint. Spino v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs, LLC, 606 F.Supp.3d 1, 2 (D.R.I. 2022). To survive such a motion, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Said differently, the complaint's allegations “need not demonstrate that she is likely to prevail, but her claim must suggest more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” DiCristoforo v. Fertility Solutions, P.C., 521 F.Supp.3d 153, 155 (D.R.I. 2021) (quoting Garcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 102 03 (1st Cir. 2013)).

The Court applies a two-step inquiry to test the plausibility of the claims at issue. Garcia-Catalan, 734 F.3d at 103. The first “distinguishes ‘the complaint's factual allegations (which must be accepted as true) from its conclusory legal allegations (which need not be credited).'” Id. (quoting Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2012)). The second assesses “whether the factual allegations are sufficient to support ‘the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Id. (quoting Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011)). In making its determination, the Court must “indulg[e] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996).

III. ANALYSIS^[4]

Marriott moves to dismiss Ms. Doe's negligence claims on the grounds that it did not owe a duty to Ms. Doe and that its negligence was not the proximate cause of Ms. Doe's injuries. Def.'s Mem. 5-12. First, Marriott contends that Ms. Doe does not present sufficient allegations to establish claims for negligent hiring and supervision. Id. at 4-5. Second, Marriott asserts that its duties to adequately hire, train, and supervise do not extend to a sexual assault that occurred outside of work hours and was unrelated to its business. Id. at 5-6. Third, it contends that it did not owe a duty to Ms. Doe because, without any prior record of violence by F.B., it was not reasonably foreseeable that F.B. would act violently toward a coworker. Id. at 9-12. Lastly, Marriott avers that its alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Ms. Doe's injuries. Id. at 9-12; Def.'s Reply 5-7, ECF No. 16.

For the reasons below, Ms. Doe states viable claims for negligent hiring and supervision but not for negligent training.

A. Threshold Factual Allegations Regarding Negligent Supervision and Training

At the outset, the Court addresses whether Ms. Doe asserts sufficient factual allegations to state claims for negligent supervision and training.^[5] Under Rhode Island law, negligent supervision and training claims are “premised on an employer failing to provide training and/or supervision that a reasonably prudent employer in the same field would have similarly offered its personnel.” McLaughlin v. deMedeiros, 613 F.Supp.3d 547, 558 (D.R.I. 2020), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds sub. nom, McLaughlin v. Tiverton Town Council, 834 Fed.Appx. 598 (1st Cir. 2021). The claims stem from an employer's duty “to retain in its service only those employees who are fit and competent.” Liu v. Striuli, 36 F.Supp.2d 452, 456 (D.R.I. 1999 (quoting Welsh Mfg. v. Pinkerton's Inc., 474 A.2d 436, 440 (R.I. 1984)).

To support her negligent supervision claim, Ms. Doe alleges that Marriott, in rehiring a supervising employee who it knew had a history of sexual harassment, did not take steps to ensure that he was not a threat to his subordinates. FAC ¶ 59. Ms. Doe further alleges that F.B. regularly sexually harassed and touched her in the workplace. Id. ¶¶ 21-23. In taking all reasonable inferences in Ms. Doe's favor, the Court finds that such allegations establish a negligent supervision claim, as Marriott did not take steps to prevent or monitor F.B.'s conduct despite his prior record of sexually harassing female colleagues. See Id. ¶¶ 21-23, 59. Moreover, a plausible inference can be made that, had Marriott properly supervised F.B., his wrongful conduct in the workplace would have placed Marriott on notice that he presented a danger to Marriott's other employees.

Conversely, Ms. Doe fails to state a claim for negligent training. Ms. Doe alleges that Marriott did not train F.B. to comply with company policies and applicable laws regarding sexual harassment. Id. ¶ 58. That conclusory allegation, however, does not provide how the training was deficient or how adequate training would have prevented the alleged sexual assault. See Algarin v. Cent. Falls Det. Facility Corp., No. 10-370-S, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66077, at *12-13 (D.R.I. June 20, 2011). Further, the Court rejects Ms. Doe's assertion that she need not provide more detailed allegations at this stage of the proceedings. See Mem. Law Supp. Pl.'s Opp'n Partial Mot. Dismiss FAC 15-16, ECF No. 12-1; see also Doe v. Alsaud, 12 F.Supp.3d 674, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (noting that courts regularly dismiss employment claims before discovery when they provide insufficient allegations).

Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice Ms. Doe's claim for negligent training.^[6]

B. Ms. Doe May Assert Negligence Claims Against Marriott Based on F.B.'s Out-of-Work Conduct

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recognizes claims for negligent hiring and supervision when third parties are injured by an employer's...