Ramsey v. Tutor

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

SHARION AYCOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On April 15, 2021, Sandra M. Ramsey commenced this action by filing her Complaint [1] against Dr. Vance Tutor. On May 19, 2021, Tutor filed a Motion to Dismiss [6], asserting that Ramsey's Complaint [1] should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Motion [6] has been fully briefed. Having reviewed the filings and the relevant authorities, the Court is prepared to rule.

Factual and Procedural Background

Ramsey is a former employee of Smith & Tutor, PLLC. She alleges that she worked at Smith & Tutor's Southaven, Mississippi location for twelve years prior to her termination on or about January 28, 2021. Ramsey served as the Office Manager at the time of her termination.^[1]

Tutor is an owner of Smith & Tutor, having purchased an interest in the LLC in January 2020. Ramsey alleges that Tutor was responsible for her termination and that he was the one who notified her of her discharge. Ramsey further avers that Tutor harbored animosity toward patients and workers in general. Specifically, Ramsey's Complaint [1] alleges:

Defendant entertained malice and ill will toward patients and workers, in general. Defendant, however, was particularly harsh and unforgiving toward older employees. Each time an older employee either quit or was fired because of Defendant's misconduct, that person would be replaced by a much younger employee

Defendant made work conditions onerous by mistreating both patient and employees. Defendant slapped one (1) patient. The

2

workday was filled with profanity and baseless claims of poor work performance

On or about January 28, 2021, Defendant notified Plaintiff that she was discharged from her employment. Defendant stated falsely that Plaintiff was not doing her job. Defendant replaced Plaintiff with a subordinate employee, who was thirty-eight (38) years old and incapable of doing the job she had previously been doing, let alone the job of office manager. This replacement was known for the number of her errors. It is impossible that Defendant thought the replacement could perform Plaintiff's job. Nothing had happened that could have caused Plaintiff to be fired, since she was an excellent employee. Defendant fired Plaintiff out of malice and ill will and not for any legitimate work-related reason

[1] at p. 2-3.

Ramsey has asserted against Tutor a state law claim for intentional interference with an at-will employment relationship. Tutor contends that Ramsey has failed to state a claim and that the Complaint [1] should therefore be dismissed.

Dismissal Standard

“Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ‘are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted.'” Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 971 F.Supp.2d 632, 637 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2013) (quoting Kocurek v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y, 459 Fed.Appx. 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2012)) (additional citation omitted). “The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid claim when all well-pleaded facts are assumed true and are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)); see also Hayes v. Wong, 2017 WL 4228223, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 22, 2017) (quoting Brittan Commc'ns Int'l Corp. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 313 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002)) (“Under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘the central issue is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.'”).

3

“However, ‘a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do so.'” Hayes, 2017 WL 4228223 at *4 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Importantly, “[i]n a Rule 12(b)(6) determination, the court must not evaluate the likelihood of the claim's success, but instead ascertain whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible.” Jones, 971 F.Supp.2d at 637-38 (citations omitted).

Analysis and Discussion

“The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that tortious interference with at-will contracts of employment is a viable claim.” Watkins v. Oakes, 318 So.3d 1125, 1129 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Levens v. Campbell, 733 So.2d 753, 760 (Miss. 1999)). “An action for tortious interference with a contract ordinarily lies when a party maliciously interferes with a valid and enforceable contract, causing one party not to perform and resulting in injury to the other contracting party.” Id. (quoting Levens, 733 So.2d at 760). To prevail on a tortious interference claim, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

(1) intentional and willful acts, (2) calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff in his lawful business, (3) done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant (which constitutes malice), and (4) resulting in actual damage or loss

Grice v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 925 So.2d 907, 910 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

In his Motion [6], Tutor contends that, as an owner of Smith & Tutor, he was not a third party to the employment relationship and therefore cannot be held liable for tortious interference.

In...