Muñoz v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc.

EYDA MUÑOZ Plaintiff, v. ARMSTRONG FLOORING, INC., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1209

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNE 4, 2019

MEMORANDUM

SCHMEHL, J.

Employers may not discriminate against an applicant or employee based on the individual's national origin. This case involves a "national origin" discrimination and retaliation claim against a native Spanish-speaker born in Puerto Rico. Defendants Armstrong Flooring, Inc. ("AFI") and Deborah Boas move to dismiss Counts II and III of Plaintiff Eyda Muñoz's Second Amended Complaint alleging Ms. Muñoz failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") before filing this lawsuit, and move to dismiss Count IV alleging Ms. Muñoz failed to exhaust her remedies under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Defendants move in the alternative to dismiss the entire complaint for failing to plead a short plain statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Reviewing the documents submitted to the EEOC and construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, this Court denies in part and grants in part the Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 25).

I. FACTS ALLEGED

Plaintiff Eyda Muñoz was born in Puerto Rico and is a native Spanish-speaker. (ECF Docket No. 21, ¶ 13.) On October 20, 2014, Armstrong World Industries, Inc. ("AWI") hired Ms. Muñoz as a Business Intelligence Analyst. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Ms. Muñoz relocated from Indiana to Mount Joy, Pennsylvania to work at AWI. On April 1, 2016, AWI separated from Armstrong Flooring Industries ("AFI"); AFI emerged as a stand-alone publicly traded company. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Following the separation, AFI and AWI forced its employees to re-apply even though they would continue employment with either AWI or AFI. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Although Ms. Muñoz requested to keep working at AWI, AFI hired her as a Business Intelligence Analyst. (Id. at ¶ 21.)

Ms. Muñoz's new supervisor, Deborah Boas, was the "Senior Manager Business Solutions for AFI." (Id. at ¶ 6.) During the first meeting between Ms. Boas and Ms. Muñoz, Ms. Boas used profanity/swear words in Spanish like, "puta" (whore), "cabrona" (prick/bitch) and "hija de puta" (son of a bitch). (Id. at ¶ 25.) Though offended, Ms. Muñoz did not report this incident. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Under this new supervision, Ms. Muñoz had trouble adjusting and began experiencing stomach problems and TMJ which her doctor related to increased stress at work. (Id. at ¶ 27.) During Ms. Muñoz's 2016 mid-year review before Ms. Boas, Ms. Muñoz alleges Ms. Boas "was highly condescending and disrespectful towards [Ms. Muñoz], telling [her] she was 'lucky' to have such a high paying job, implying [Ms. Muñoz] was lucky given that her first language from [sic] Spanish and because she was Puerto Rican, and impl[ied] [Ms. Muñoz] did nothing at work and could easily be replaced by one of Boas' daughters." (Id. at ¶ 28.) Ms. Boas also made remarks toward Ms. Muñoz regarding her Puerto Rican ethnicity and the factthat her first language was Spanish. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Specifically, "[o]n one or more occasions Boas made remarks that she did not like when people spoke in languages other than English," knowing that Ms. Muñoz liked to speak to others in her native language. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Ms. Boas also critiqued Ms. Muñoz's work alleging she did not perform the work of an Analyst. (Id. at ¶ 30.) During the review Ms. Muñoz informed Ms. Boas that she was not having any problems at work but casually mentioned that she sometimes struggled to pick up "slang" used in the office because her first language was Spanish. (Id. at ¶ 29.)

After the mid-year review, Ms. Boas altered Ms. Muñoz's duties and imposed restrictions which were not imposed on any other AFI employee. Specifically, Ms. Boas required Ms. Muñoz: personally advise Ms. Boas in advance when she needed to leave work early instead of blocking off the time in the electronic calendar as is usually required; send Ms. Boas email summaries of every meeting Ms. Muñoz attends for Ms. Boas to ensure Ms. Muñoz understood the meeting's subject and purpose; copy Ms. Boas on every email Ms. Muñoz sent even if the email did not relate to Ms. Boas; and finally, always be on Skype so Ms. Boas could make sure Ms. Muñoz was at her desk. (Id. at ¶ 36.)

As a result of her interactions with Ms. Boas, Ms. Muñoz alleges, her medical problems worsened. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-39.) On top of her anxiety and depression, Ms. Muñoz suffered from insomnia and was diagnosed with major depression disorder. (Id. at ¶ 39.) In October of 2016, Ms. Muñoz sent a letter to HR—specifically Victoria Petroskie¹—requesting assistance regarding Ms. Boas' behavior. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Ms. Petroskie refusedto directly assist Ms. Muñoz and instead directed her to the Compliance Manager. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Because of Ms. Muñoz's complaint, certain restrictions were imposed on Ms. Muñoz, such as: 1) an HR employee needed to be present for any meeting between Ms. Muñoz and Ms. Boas; and 2) Ms. Boas needed to be present for every meeting between HR and Ms. Muñoz regarding Ms. Muñoz's issues with Ms. Boas. (Id. at ¶ 43.) But even after this meeting, her behavior allegedly continued as Ms. Boas again demanded Ms. Muñoz provide email summaries of every meeting to confirm Ms. Muñoz understood the meetings. (Id. at ¶ 46.) Again, a policy not imposed on any other AFI employee. (Id. at ¶ 47.)

In early 2017, Ms. Muñoz was assigned the role of Project Manager, Analyst, and Developer for a large project. (Id. at ¶ 49.) Ms. Muñoz's portion of the project—which required a presentation—was due the week of May 8, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 50.) Given her health issues allegedly related to Ms. Boas' conduct, Ms. Muñoz asked Ms. Boas for an extension to complete the project; Ms. Boas declined her request. (Id. at ¶ 52.) As the deadline approached, Ms. Muñoz again requested an extension but instead asked Ms. Boas' supervisor, Greg Beaudoin, as Ms. Boas was away on vacation. (Id. at ¶ 53.) Mr. Beaudoin granted Ms. Muñoz's request for an extension and recommended Ms. Muñoz speak with HR to discuss her options regarding medical leave. (Id. at ¶ 53.) Ms. Boas, upon returning from vacation and learning Ms. Muñoz asked her supervisor for the extension she already denied, informed Ms. Muñoz she would present her portion of the project as scheduled. (Id. at ¶ 56.)

While driving to the presentation, Ms. Muñoz suffered a panic attack and immediately drove to the doctor's office for treatment. (Id. at ¶ 58.) There the doctorstreated Ms. Muñoz for depression and anxiety and recommended she take leave from work. (Id. ¶ 60.) Ms. Muñoz informed AFI she would be out of work until at least May 29, 2017, and obtained documentation for FMLA leave. (Id. at ¶ 61.) On May 29, 2017, Ms. Muñoz's doctor recommended she continue FMLA leave until at least the middle of July. (Id. at ¶ 62.) On July 17, 2017, shortly before returning to work, Ms. Muñoz contacted AFI to "proactively address any problems that might arise when [she] returned to work under Boas" and again request she no longer be mistreated by Ms. Boas. (Id. at ¶ 65.) Ms. Muñoz merely raised the same issues the she raised in her October 2016 letter. (Id. at ¶ 66.) Ms. Muñoz requested she "be treated the same as her coworkers, and that Boas treat her with respect and cease subjecting [her] to a retaliatory, discriminatory and hostile work environment, which had directly caused [her] the need to take leave under the FMLA." (Id. at ¶ 69.) AFI again refused Ms. Muñoz's request. (Id. at ¶ 70.)

Ms. Muñoz returned to work on July 24, 2017, and again contacted Human Resources to address the issues raised in her October 2016 letter. (Id. at ¶ 72.) Ms. Petroskie again informed Ms. Muñoz that nothing could be done and refused to help her. (Id. at ¶ 73.) Sonya Zook, the new Division Manager for AFI, scheduled a meeting with Ms. Muñoz to discuss her work product. (Id. at ¶ 74.) Ms. Zook proceeded to evaluate Ms. Muñoz's work product and eventually read notes provided by Ms. Boas accusing Ms. Muñoz of failing to complete her work and not doing the work of an Analyst. (Id. at ¶ 76.) Without any warning, Ms. Muñoz was terminated and escorted out of the building. (Id. at ¶¶ 76-77.)

Following her termination, on May 11, 2018, Ms. Muñoz filed a charge with the EEOC which the EEOC received on May 15, 2018. (ECF Docket No. 25, at Ex. A.) Inthe charge, Ms. Muñoz alleged Defendants engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices in violation of Title VII and the PHRA. (Id.) Ms. Muñoz also requested the EEOC charge be dual-filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. (Id.) On May 23, 2018, Ms. Muñoz signed and verified her election to dual-file with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and provided an affidavit verifying the information in the EEOC charge and Second Amended Complaint is true and correct. (ECF Docket No. 26, Ex. D.) On March 20, 2018, Ms. Muñoz filed the instant action. (ECF Docket No. 1.) On September 1, 2018, the EEOC issued a Right to Sue Letter and on October 1, 2018, Ms. Muñoz filed a second amended complaint adding Title VII claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation. (ECF Docket No. 21.) On October 12, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"To survive a motion to dismiss, 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)). A claim satisfies the plausibility standard when the facts alleged "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Burtch v. Millberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). While the plausibility standard is not "akin to a ...