Glass v. Tradesmen Int'l, LLC

505 F.Supp.3d 747

Jennifer GLASS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-CV-01331

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Signed December 4, 2020

Bradley A. Sherman, F. Allen Boseman, Jr., Ashley M. Fuchs, Sherman Boseman Legal Group, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Andrew D. Welker, Seyfarth Shaw, Christina M. Janice, Barnes & Thornburg, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Tradesmen International, LLC.

Vincent T. Norwillo, Law Office of Vincent T. Norwillo, Hinckley, OH, for Defendant Matthew McClone.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

PAMELA A. BARKER, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in Part and to Strike, filed by Defendant Tradesmen International, LLC ("Tradesmen") on April 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 31.) Plaintiff Tracy Reese ("Reese") filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendant Tradesmen's Motion on June 1, 2020. (Doc. No. 34.) Defendant Tradesmen filed a Reply in Support of its Motion on June 15, 2020. (Doc. No. 35.)

On April 30, 2020, Defendant Matthew McClone ("McClone") filed a Motion to Join Tradesmen's pending Motion to Dismiss in Part and Strike. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff did not oppose McClone's request.

For the following reasons, McClone's Motion to Join (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED and Tradesmen's Motion to Dismiss in Part and to Strike (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Tracy Reese worked at Tradesmen from 2005 until 2014.¹ (Doc. No. 29, ¶ 67.) Tradesmen describes itself as a "staffing company that specializes in providing skilled and experienced craft professionals to employers throughout the United States and Canada." (Doc. No. 31, PageID# 633.) During her tenure at Tradesmen, Reese held several positions, including "administrative assistant, credit analyst, credit processor and payroll processor." (Doc. No. 29, ¶ 68.) Reese alleges that she was subjected to severe sexual harassment and gender discrimination during her employment at Tradesmen. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 67-80.)

Reese alleges that her supervisor, McClone, harassed and unfairly targeted her for negative treatment after she rebuffed his multiple sexual advances. (Id. at ¶ 72.) Prior to 2013, Reese handled some payroll processing for McClone when he worked in Tradesmen's Madison, Wisconsin office. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Reese alleges that McClone was "flirtatious" with her when he traveled to Tradesmen's Northeast Ohio headquarters. (Id. at ¶ 70-71.)

Reese alleges that McClone's behavior intensified in 2013, when he was promoted and transferred to Northeast Ohio. (Id. ) Reese alleges that McClone propositioned Reese "on several occasions" and, at one point, asked her to "come back to his house and ‘get drunk and dirty.’ " (Id. at ¶ 72.) Reese alleges that she "always rebuffed his advances." (Id. )

Reese alleges that McClone did not handle rejection well and that he began to retaliate against her for refusing his propositions. (Id. at ¶ 74.) Reese alleges that McClone began to "dramatically increase" her workload, forcing her to work longer and harder than her coworkers. (Id. ) At the same time, McClone reduced Reese's pay by removing a bonus opportunity for which she was previously eligible. (Id. at ¶ 75.) McClone also held Reese to a separate, higher standard than other employees and disciplined Reese for going out to lunch with Masiella. (Id. at ¶ 76.)

Reese alleges that, in fear for her job, she approached Tradesmen's Human Resources department about McClone's behavior, but that nothing was done. (Id. at ¶ 78.) After Reese went to Human Resources, McClone intensified his harassment of Reese. (Id. at ¶ 79.) Reese again sought help from Human Resources and asked Jeannie Woodall to intervene or else permit Reese to transfer back to her prior position in the Payroll Department. (Id. at ¶ 79.) Again, Human Resources failed to stop McClone's alleged harassment. (Id. ) Reese alleges that McClone stopped Reese's transfer request. (Id. ) Within a week of Reese's second complaint to Human Resources, McClone fired Reese in "retaliation for not having sex with him and for complaining to Human Resources about his harassing behavior ...." (Id. at ¶ 80.)

More generally, Reese asserts that similar unlawful conduct and differential treatment between male and female employees occurs throughout Tradesmen's offices, regardless of the office location. (See ¶¶ 31-33.) Reese alleges that sexual propositions and crude comments to female employees were an accepted part of Tradesmen's culture. (Id. at ¶ 13.) For example, Reese alleges that Joseph Wesley, Tradesmen's founder and chairman, once told Reese in front of other Tradesmen managers and executives that Reese had "a very nice set of tits." (Id. at ¶ 11.) Reese alleges that when female employees refused the sexual advances of their superiors and coworkers, the women were often "subjected to brutal retaliation." (Id. at ¶ 13.) Further, according to Reese, there was a "well-established glass ceiling" at Tradesmen, meaning that women were categorically denied advancement beyond a certain level at Tradesmen. (Id. at ¶ 16.) At the Executive Management level, female participation was limited exclusively to Human Resources and Reese alleges that only one female employee at a time was ever elevated to the executive level. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Reese claims that this limited system of advancement ensured that women were paid less than their male counterparts. (Id. at ¶ 18.)

B. Procedural History

On May 10, 2019, Reese, along with former plaintiffs Masiella and Glass, filed a Class Action Complaint ("Initial Complaint") against Tradesmen and McClone (collectively, "Defendants") in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 1-2.) In the Initial Complaint, Reese, Masiella, and Glass asserted claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of female employees against Defendants for gender discrimination, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112. (Id. )

On June 10, 2019, Tradesmen removed the suit to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.)² Shortly thereafter, on June 17, 2019, Tradesmen filed a Motion to Strike Class Claims, as well as a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiffs Masiella and Glass. (Docs. No. 8, 9.) On February 19, 2020, the Court granted Tradesmen's Motion to Strike Class Claims and ordered Plaintiffs to amend the Initial Complaint within thirty days. (Doc. No. 25.) Also on February 19, 2020, the Court dismissed Glass's claims and ordered Glass and Defendants to arbitration pursuant to the terms of Glass's Arbitration Agreement. (Id. ) The Court deferred ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration with respect to Masiella until the Court could complete an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed between Masiella and Defendants. (Id. )

On April 14, 2020, Reese and former plaintiff Masiella filed a Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint"). In this Complaint, Reese and Masiella asserted claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of all female employees "who are, have been, or will be employed by Tradesmen and who worked out of Tradesmen's corporate headquarters in Macedonia, Ohio, during the applicable liability period until the date of judgment" against Defendants. (Doc. No. 29, ¶ 19.) They asserted claims for sexual harassment/hostile work environment, retaliation, gender discrimination, and aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112. (Id. , ¶¶ 90-134.)

On April 30, 2020, Defendant Tradesmen filed a Motion to Dismiss in Part and to Strike.³ (Doc. No. 31.) On June 1, 2020, Reese and Masiella filed a Brief in Opposition to Tradesmen's Motion. (Doc. No. 34.) Tradesmen filed a Reply in Support of its Motion on June 15, 2020. (Doc. No. 35.)

On September 25, 2020, while Tradesmen's instant motion remained pending, this Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed between Masiella and Tradesmen. On September 29, 2020, the Court found that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed between Masiella and Tradesmen. (Doc. No. 43.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed Masiella's claims and ordered Masiella and Tradesmen to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. (Id. ) Therefore, only one named plaintiff, Reese, remains in this case.

Tradesmen's Motion to Dismiss in Part and to Strike is now ripe for resolution.

II. Tradesmen's Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard

The Court will first address Tradesmen's Motion to Dismiss in Part. Tradesmen moves to dismiss certain of Reese's claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construes the Complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Gunasekera v. Irwin , 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009). In order to survive a motion to dismiss under this Rule, "a complaint must contain (1) ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible,’ (2) more than ‘formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements,’ and (3) allegations that suggest a ‘right to relief above a speculative level.’ " Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC , 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

The measure of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge—whether the Complaint raises a right to relief above the speculative level—"does not ‘require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n. , 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th...