Edwards v. Canton Pub. Sch. Dist.

1

PAIGE EDWARDS PLAINTIFF v. CANTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT and JEREMY JACKSON DEFENDANTS

Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-469-HTW-LGI

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

August 2, 2024

ORDER

HENRY T. WINGATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Before this court is the Renewed Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 45], filed by Defendant Jeremy Jackson (hereinafter “Defendant Jackson”) under the auspices of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)^[1]. Defendant Jackson, by way of his motion, asks this court to dismiss Plaintiff Paige Edwards's (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Edwards”) Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 23]. Upon analyzing the parties' arguments, reviewing the record, and applying the appropriate law, this court finds that it must deny Defendant Jackson's motion to dismiss for the reasons following.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

At the time of the alleged acts, Edwards was employed in Canton, Mississippi, by Defendant Canton Public School District (hereinafter “Defendant School District”) as a middle school girls' basketball team coach. Defendant Jackson, at the same time, was employed by Defendant School District at the same middle school as the boys' basketball coach. Defendant Jackson also coached the School District's high school boys' basketball team. The middle school coaching duties of Edwards and Defendant Jackson often resulted in the pair interacting with each other professionally and personanly. Eventually, the pair decided to engage in a voluntary romantic relationship. The love affair was short-lived, lasting only from September 2017 to November 2017.

The death knell to the romance came suddenly. Edwards says in November 2017, she discovered a shocking fact: Defendant Jackson, allegedly unbeknownst to Edwards, at the time of this voluntary relationship, was married, and had been so all along. Edwards contends that up until then, when she participated in this voluntary relationship, “she had no idea that Jackson was married”. She says she would not have entered the relationship with Defendant Jackson had she known that he was married. Once she learned of Defendant Jackson's deception, she adds, she immediately terminated the relationship.

According to Edwards, Defendant Jackson did not welcome her decision, but, instead, embarked on a mission of harassment designed to change her mind. The unsettling harassment reached such an extent, says Edwards, that her employment with the Canton Public School District was affected. Further, complains Edwards, she suffered extreme emotional distress because of Defendant Jackson's intentional misconduct.

Edwards explains that she developed an intense fear of Defendant Jackson because he had lied to her, and because he irrationally persisted in seeking to continue their relationship, despite her unequivocal desires to stop it. She alleges that she was so fearful for her safety that she sought a protective order against Defendant Jackson from a state court judge. The State Justice Court request, says Edwards, because Defendant Jackson had lied to the court about his marital status.

Edwards further alleged that in early July 2018, she “reported her fear” to the Superintendent of the Canton Public School District, Dwight Luckett. Since she sought protection and distance from Defendant Jackson, she says she asked Superintendent Luckett to require only to coach at the high school. This was a “reasonable accommodation”, according to Edwards, because the middle school had two boys' basketball coaches, so that team would still have a coach. She was disappointed with the Superintendent's answer. The Superintendent, a male, deliberately refused to take any action, she contends, because his son was one of the middle school basketball players, and he did not want negatively to impact his son's position. Edwards claims because of all this, she has lost weight and now suffers from a medical condition “as a result of the constant sexual harassment from Coach Jackson”. She alleges that Defendant School District, in conjunction with the actions of Defendant Jackson, have subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her sex (female).

Edwards remained in her position at the middle school for the duration of the 2018-2019 school year because she allegedly could not find employment elsewhere. She states that she sought counseling by four different therapists due to the stress and anxiety caused by Defendant Jackson's alleged harassment. In the spring of 2019, she resigned from her position with the Defendant School District and accepted a job in a different School District.

B. Administrative Process

On October 1, 2018, Edwards filed a Charge of Discrimination (“EEOC Charge”) against Canton School District, (the named “Respondent”) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). [Doc. 14-1].

In the EEOC Charge Section asking for the specific allegations against Respondent, Edwards checked the box indicating “Sex”. Edwards included the following statement in support of her claim:

I have worked for Respondent as a middle school Physical Education Teacher/Girls' Basketball Coach since August 2017. Since late June 2018, I began rebuffing the sexual advances and relationship of Jeremy Jackson (male, Basketball Coach) after I became aware that he was married. Despite my efforts, Coach Jackson has continued to aggressively pursue me with constant text messages, coming [to] my workspace, and staring at me. In early July 2018, I complained of sexual harassment to Dwight Luckett (male, Superintendent) and although he said he would take care of this matter, the sexual harassment from Coach Jackson has continued. I have lost weight and suffer from a medical condition as a result of the constant sexual harassment from Coach Jackson. I believe I have been subjected to a hostile work environment because of my sex (female).

I have become extremely concerned about Coach Jackson's aggressive behavior and currently have moved in with relatives and friends so as to avoid contact with him. Coach Jackson continues to send me text messages expressing his love for me even though I have repeatedly rebuffed his advances.

I believe I was discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

[Doc. 14-1]. The above constituted the whole of Plaintiff's description of the events and circumstances of her EEOC Charge.

The EEOC has 180 days from the day it assumes jurisdiction over a matter to investigate the EEOC Charge.^[2]If it is unable to investigate or consolidate the matter within that time frame, it issues to the aggrieved party a Notice of Right to Sue Within 90 Days. The EEOC, unable to reach Edwards's claim within the allotted time frame, issued to her a Notice of Right to Sue Letter on February 4, 2019 [Doc. 14-2]. Edwards initiated her state court lawsuit on April 24, 2019, within EEOC's ninety (90) day filing period.

C. Procedural Posture

On July 3, 2019, Defendant School District removed^[3] this lawsuit from state court to this federal forum. On August 20, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Linda Anderson granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 13]. Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on August 23, 2019 [Doc. 14], adding Defendant Jackson to this lawsuit, and alleging two new claims against him: (1) malicious interference with employment; and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant Jackson, thereafter, on September 26, 2019, filed a motion to dismiss Edwards's Complaint [Doc. 21]. On July 29, 2020, this court denied Defendant Jackson's motion to dismiss and allowed Edwards to amend her Complaint a second time.

Edwards filed her Second Amended Complaint on August 6, 2020. The Second Amended Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) Title VII sexual harassment against Defendant Canton Public School District; and (2) intentional interference with employment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Jeremy Jackson. Plaintiff, by way of her Second Amended Complaint, seeks the following relief: actual damages from Defendant School District; and actual and punitive damages^[4] from Defendant Jackson.

The next day, August 7, 2020, Defendant Jackson filed a renewed motion to dismiss this lawsuit, stating that Plaintiff had failed to state a viable claim against him.

Before this court could reach the merits of Defendant Jackson's motion, however, on August 17, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel brought to the attention of the court a case then pending before the Mississippi Court of Appeals, Watkins v. Oakes, 318 So.3d 1125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). Plaintiff asked this court to await the Mississippi Court of Appeals' ruling on that lawsuit, because, according to Plaintiff's counsel, that lawsuit might impact one or more issues involved in the motion to dismiss pending before the court. Persuaded by the reasoning, this court orally granted Plaintiff's request [Doc 49]. On November 19, 2020, this court continued the stay until disposition of the Watkins case by the Mississippi Supreme Court [Doc. 52].

Ultimately, the Mississippi Court of Appels ruled in favor of the defendant in the Watkins case^[5], and the Mississippi Supreme court denied certiorari. Thereafter, this court lifted its stay. This court now proceeds with Defendant Jackson's renewed motion to dismiss [Doc. 45].

II. JURISDICTION

This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331^[6], often referred to as “federal question jurisdiction.” Under federal question jurisdiction, this court has the power to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit if a plaintiff alleges some claim or right arising under the United States Constitution...