Thompson v. City of Muscle Shoals

ANNA CATHERINE THOMPSON, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF MUSCLE SHOALS, ALABAMA, et. al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-01686-CLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

Dated: October 9, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Anna Catherine Thompson, alleges that defendants committed acts of pregnancy-based employment discrimination, and asserts multiple causes of action under federal employment discrimination statutes and state tort law.¹ Specifically, plaintiff's federal claims include pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as well as interference with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. (FMLA).² Plaintiff's supplemental state-law claims include two counts of intentional infliction ofemotional distress,³ defamation,⁴ invasion of privacy,⁵ and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.⁶

Originally, plaintiff only filed claims against her former employer, the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and the former Muscle Shoals Library Director, Hannah W. Jeffreys.⁷ In her corrected first amended complaint, plaintiff added two new defendants: i.e., the Muscle Shoals City Clerk/Treasurer, Ricky Williams; and, the Muscle Shoals Human Resources Director, Elaine Coan.⁸ This case is before the court on defendants' joint motion to dismiss some of the claims asserted against the City of Muscle Shoals, and all claims against Ms. Jeffreys, Mr. Williams, and Ms. Coan.⁹ Upon consideration, this court will grant the motion. All of plaintiff's claims for punitive damages under federal employment discrimination statutes will be dismissed. Further, plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with only her claims for pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, hostile environment, and interference with her rights under the FMLA against the City.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for, among other reasons, "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule must be read together with Rule 8(a), which requires that a pleading contain only a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While that pleading standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 544 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), it does demand "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

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." [Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,] 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 [(2007)]. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id., at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (brackets omitted).

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (alterations supplied).

II. FACTS AS ALLEGED¹⁰

Plaintiff began employment with working for the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in its police department during April of 2006, but was reassigned to the City's public library as an assistant librarian on November 2, 2010.¹¹ On or about April 8, 2011, plaintiff found out that she was pregnant, and informed her employer and Ms. Jeffreys,¹² her immediate supervisor.¹³

On April 21, 2011, plaintiff overheard Ms. Jeffreys expressing "disappointment, disapproval, and dislike of [her] pregnancy."¹⁴ Specifically, Ms. Jeffreys stated that plaintiff's "pregnancy was embarrassing to her[,] and [that] she did not want to have anything to do with [her]."¹⁵

Before plaintiff announced her pregnancy, she was not informed of anyproblems with her performance.¹⁶ Afterward, however, Ms. Jeffreys began to regularly shout at plaintiff, slam the door in her face, and call her "a bad employee and an embarrassment to the library."¹⁷ Further, Ms. Jeffreys began complaining about plaintiff's performance, "harassing [her] unmercifully, making [her] work life unbearable, [and] making [her] work environment extremely hostile."¹⁸

Plaintiff went into Ms. Jeffrey's office on April 27, 2011, and asked to talk with her.¹⁹ Plaintiff then told Ms. Jeffreys that "it hurt her very much and was very upsetting to her that [Ms.] Jeffreys was telling people . . . ugly things about her and her pregnancy . . . [and] doing things which made [her] work harder."²⁰ She also "asked [Ms.] Jeffreys to please stop."²¹

Ms. Jeffreys summoned plaintiff to her office for a meeting on the following day, April 28, 2011, and confirmed that she "had told people that [plaintiff] was an embarrassment because of [her] pregnancy[,] and that she disapproved of and disliked [her] pregnancy."²² Ms. Jeffreys also stated that "[plaintiff] should not have gotten pregnant[,] . . . that she should be ashamed[,] . . . [and that] she was going to make lifemiserable for [her]."²³ Ms. Jeffreys stated that "she would teach [plaintiff] not to get pregnant by extending [her] probationary period," and handed plaintiff a letter that she (Ms. Jeffreys) had signed and dated April 28, 2011, extending plaintiff's probationary period for an additional sixty days.²⁴ The letter also stated that plaintiff was insubordinate and had poorly performed the duties of her job position.²⁵

One of the requirements of applying for the library manager position when Ms. Jeffreys retired was that the applicant had to be a non-probationary employee.²⁶ Because plaintiff's probationary period had been extended, she was unable to apply for the position.²⁷ The difference in annual salary between the positions of assistant librarian and library manager was roughly $21,000.²⁸

After the meeting in which Ms. Jeffreys delivered to plaintiff the letter extending her probationary period, Ms. Jeffreys began a daily practice of accusing plaintiff of insubordination and poor job performance.²⁹ She also moved plaintiff's desk and personal belongings to a different area in the main library,³⁰ and would notallow anyone to assist her.³¹ Both changes made plaintiff's work more difficult.³²

Plaintiff reported Ms. Jeffreys's behavior to the City's Civil Service Board on or about May 2, 2011, after which Ms. Jeffreys "became even more hostile,"³³ and "made [plaintiff's] work life even more miserable."³⁴ Specifically, Ms. Jeffreys told plaintiff that she was going to ensure that she was fired, which frightened plaintiff because she needed the medical insurance benefits and income provided by her position with the library.³⁵ But, Ms. Jeffreys's hostility and constant ridicule of plaintiff's pregnancy interfered with plaintiff's ability to perform the duties of her job.³⁶

On May 17, 2011, plaintiff gave Ms. Jeffreys a doctor's note containing lifting restrictions.³⁷ In turn, Ms. Jeffreys "got mad and told [plaintiff] that [she] would do exactly what [Ms.] Jeffreys told her [to] do regardless of what [plaintiff's] doctor told her to do or quit."³⁸ Additionally, Ms. Jeffreys revised plaintiff's work schedule in a manner that made her work more difficult.³⁹

Plaintiff filed her initial Charge of Discrimination against the City with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 18, 2011,⁴⁰ after which she was subjected to "extreme stress, mental and emotional anguish, ridicule, and humiliation during the course of her work."⁴¹ Further, Ms. Jeffreys began to tell plaintiff "that [she] did not know what she was doing [and] that [she] did not know how to do her job, and made [her] feel diminished and worthless as a person all the while telling [her that] she was an embarrassment to the library and the City because she was pregnant."⁴²

Plaintiff began experiencing complications with her pregnancy on June 25, 2011, and was initially admitted to the hospital in Florence,⁴³ but she was later transferred to Huntsville Hospital in Madison County, where she was restricted to bed rest and required to remain flat on her back until her child was born.⁴⁴ Mr. Ricky Williams, the City Clerk/Treasurer, and Ms. Elaine Coan, the City's Human Resources Director, visited plaintiff at the hospital and told her that the City was going to allow her FMLA leave run consecutively to her accrued sick leave andaccrued vacation time — concessions that, under the circumstances, would have been extremely helpful to plaintiff.⁴⁵ Following plaintiff's release from Huntsville Hospital, however, Mr. Williams and Ms. Coan informed her that the City had changed its mind, and that her FMLA leave would run concurrently with her accrued sick leave and accrued vacation time.⁴⁶ At the time, the City knew that plaintiff's son had been born prematurely, and that the infant had to remain in the hospital's prenatal care unit,⁴⁷ and that plaintiff had no more FMLA leave, accrued sick leave, or accrued vacation time.⁴⁸ Nevertheless, the City made clear that, if plaintiff did not report to work after she was released from Huntsville Hospital, she would be classified as absent from work without excuse or protection.⁴⁹

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Claims Against the City

1. Punitive damages

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the City in connection with her claims for pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and...