Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy

902 F.Supp.2d 1208

Ellen S. EWALD, Plaintiff,

v.ROYAL NORWEGIAN EMBASSY, Defendant.

Civil No. 11–CV–2116 (SRN/SER).

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Oct. 9, 2012.

Thomas E. Marshall, Sheila A. Engelmeier, and Susanne J. Fischer, Engelmeier & Umanah, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Daniel G. Wilczek, Joel P. Schroeder, and Sean Somermeyer, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant.

AMENDED

ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 19]. For the reasons set forth herein, and as stated at the hearing, Defendant's Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts of this employment discrimination are thoroughly set forth in this Court's Order of January 26, 2012 [Doc. No. 18], which this Court incorporates by reference. Briefly, Plaintiff Ellen Ewald alleges that in July 2008, she applied for the position of Higher Education and Research Officer with Defendant, the Royal Norwegian Embassy (“the Embassy”), at the Honorary Norwegian Consulate General in Minneapolis. (Compl. ¶ 7 [Doc. No. 1].) At the time, the Embassy also posted an Innovation and Business Development Officer position in Minneapolis. ( Id.) Ewald alleges that the Embassy informed her that the two Officer positions offered the same salary and benefits, were considered “parallel positions” with similar responsibilities, and the Officers would work as a team under the direction of the Honorary Consul General and the Honorary Consul. ( Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) Based on the Embassy's representations, Ewald alleges that she accepted the offer of employment as Higher Education and Research Officer on October 1, 2008, and relocated from Norway in order to work for the Embassy in Minneapolis. ( Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) The Embassy subsequently hired Anders Davidson as the Innovation and Business Development Officer. ( Id. ¶ 15.)

Ewald contends that Defendant discriminated against her based on gender, alleging the following differences in Defendant's treatment of her and that of Mr. Davidson: Ewald's domestic partner and their two children were denied health insurance coverage, while Mr. Davidson's wife and children received coverage ( id. ¶ 18); Davidson received a significantly higher salary ( id. ¶ 25); Davidson received an assistant, while Ewald did not ( id. ¶ 41); and Davidson received travel funding, while Ewald did not. ( Id.) Ewald further contends that she was not permitted to attend certain professional events—specifically, a “Science Week” event—that were considered part of her job duties. ( Id. ¶¶ 43–51.) Davidson was provided travel expenses to attend such events, Ewald contends, although his attendance was not an essential function of his duties. ( Id.) When Ewald expressed her frustration about the alleged unequal treatment, she contends that Defendant retaliated against by not providing sufficient administrative assistance and by further ostracizing her. ( Id. ¶ 41.) Defendant informed Plaintiff that it would not extend her employment contract beyond its October 2011 expiration date. ( Id. ¶ 59.)

In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts seven claims against Defendant: promissory estoppel (Count I); false representation in violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.64 (Count II); gender discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn.Stat. § 363A.08, Subd. 2 (Count III); reprisal in violation of the MHRA, Minn.Stat. § 363A.15 (Count IV); retaliatory harassment in violation of the MHRA, Minn.Stat. §§ 363A.08, 363A.14, and 363A.15 (Count VI); violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (Count VII); and violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn.Stat. § 181.932 (Count VIII).¹

Defendant moves to dismiss, arguing that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. Alternatively, if the Court relies on evidence outside the pleadings, Defendant moves for summary judgment.

II. DISCUSSIONA. Standard of Review

When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court assumes the facts in the Complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). However, the Court need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.1999), or legal conclusions Plaintiffs draw from the facts pled. Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. As the United States Supreme Court recently stated, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” will not pass muster under Twombly.Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). In sum, this standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Here, the Court will not consider evidence outside of the pleadings, and therefore confines its analysis to Plaintiff's Complaint.

B. Plaintiff's Claims

1. Promissory Estoppel

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim must be dismissed because she had a valid employment contract with the Embassy. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 10 [Doc. No. 20].) Plaintiff responds, however, that she relied to her detriment on the information that Defendant provided in the interview process, outside of the employment contract—information regarding the same salary range for the two open positions and the same benefits—in accepting her position with the Embassy.

“Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that implies a contract in law where none exists in fact.” Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 616 N.W.2d 732, 746 (Minn.2000) (quotation and citations omitted). A claim for promissory estoppel requires proof of the following three elements: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) the promisor intended to induce reliance and such reliance occurred to the promisee's detriment; and (3) the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice. Id. (citation omitted). As this Court has held, “[b]ecause promissory estoppel implies a contract where none exists in fact, such a claim may not proceed where a legally enforceable contract was formed.” InCompass IT, Inc. v. XO Commc'ns Servs., No. 10–CV–3864 (SRN/JJG), 2012 WL 28267, *5 (D.Minn. Jan. 5, 2012) (citing Gorham v. Benson Optical, 539 N.W.2d 798, 801–802 (Minn.Ct.App.1995)).

In Jackson v. Navitaire, Inc., No. 04–CV–1557 (RHK/AJB), 2005 WL 61490, *3 (D.Minn. Jan. 11, 2005), this Court considered a similar motion to dismiss a promissory estoppel claim under Rule 12. The plaintiffs in that case argued that the promises alleged in the complaint, combined with the plaintiffs' move to Minnesota in reliance on those promises, formed an employment agreement prior to, and independent of, the signed agreements. Id. The plaintiffs argued that it was the prior agreements—not the signed agreements—that formed the basis of their breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Id. This Court held that the allegations in the complaint sufficiently alleged those claims and therefore denied the motion to dismiss them. Id. at *4.

At this early stage of the litigation, viewing the facts in the light most favorableto Plaintiff, the Court finds that she has stated a promissory estoppel claim that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff alleges clear and definite statements indicating that the two posted positions offered the same salary range, with a maximum starting salary of $70,000. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Moreover, she alleges that Defendant's representatives also informed her that the two positions offered the same benefits. ( Id.) She further alleges that, in reliance on those statements, she accepted the Higher Education and Research Officer position and moved her family to Minnesota. ( Id. ¶¶ 12; 62.) Ewald contends that Defendant breached its promise and, in fact, did not provide a salary and benefits identical to those offered her male counterpart, Mr. Davidson. (Id. ¶ 63.) Finally, she alleges that it would be unjust not to enforce Defendant's promise. (Id. ¶ 64.) Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a plausible claim for promissory estoppel. See Martens, 616 N.W.2d at 746. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim is denied.

2. False Representation under Minn.Stat. § 181.64

Plaintiff asserts a false representation claim under Minn.Stat. § 181.64, which provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company, corporation, association, or organization of any kind, doing business in this state, directly or through any agent or attorney, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country to any place in this state, to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning the kind or character of such work, the compensation therefor, the sanitary conditions relating to or surrounding it, or failure to state in any advertisement, proposal, or contract for the employment that there is a strike or lockout at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact such strike or lockout then actually exists in such employment at such place. Any such unlawful acts...