United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
E. DOWDELL, CHIEF JUDGE.
Katina Wilson (“Plaintiff”) asserts five claims
against her former employer, EAN Holdings, LLC
(“Defendant”): (1) sexual harassment/sexually
hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, (2)
retaliation in violation of Title VII, (3) disability
discrimination in violation of the ADAAA, (4) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and (5) interference and
retaliation in violation of the FMLA. (Doc. 2-1). Defendant
has moved to dismiss Ms. Wilson's IIED claim pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). (Doc. 16).
Civ. P. 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are
closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move
for judgment on the pleadings.” “A motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is treated as a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Atl. Richfield Co.
v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1160
(10th Cir. 2000).
ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), “the court must liberally construe
the pleadings and make all reasonable inferences in favor of
the non-moving party.” Broker's Choice of Am.,
Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081, 1105 (10th
Cir. 2017). However, plaintiffs must plead sufficient factual
allegations “to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 1104 (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint that merely
“‘tenders naked assertion[s]' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement'” does not
satisfy the pleading standard. Id. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Summary of the Allegations
following is a summary of Plaintiff's allegations, which
are contained in her Complaint (Doc. 2-1) and must be taken
as true at the dismissal stage. See Broker's Choice
of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081,
1105 (10th Cir. 2017).
began her employment with Defendant on May 13, 2013, as an
account coordinator. (Doc. 2-1 at ¶ 12). She alleges
that she began receiving unwanted advances and sexual
harassment from her supervisor, Harry Colbert, starting in
January 2015. (Id. at ¶ 13). She alleges that
this harassment occurred daily and that it “included
lewd comments, leering at the Plaintiff at her desk, [and]
unwanted physical contact.” (Id.). Plaintiff
alleges that she made a complaint to Human Resources
(“HR”) concerning the harassment but that the
harassment continued until Mr. Colbert was fired in May 2016.
(Id. at ¶¶ 14-15).
further alleges that other male supervisors “began
singling Plaintiff out, excluding her from meetings,
reporting her for alleged appearance and dress code
violations, and engaging in otherwise retaliatory behavior as
a result of her complaints [to HR].” (Id. at
¶ 16). She alleges that one of these male supervisors
discussed her HR complaint with another coworker and allowed
the coworker to view Plaintiff's performance review.
(Id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff asserts that this
retaliatory behavior caused her stress and anxiety that
“required [her] to apply for FMLA leave for a serious
medical condition.” (Id. at ¶ 18).
Specifically, she alleges that her stress and anxiety were
accompanied by severe migraines and stomach issues.
(Id. at 22). Plaintiff alleges that she sought a
work-from-home position but was denied this accommodation.
(Id. at ¶ 21). She also alleges to have sought
a transfer to a different department but was told such a
transfer would result in a decrease in pay. (Id. at
Plaintiff alleges that, upon her return from FMLA leave, she
was “counseled for the incomplete work that was not
completed during her leave” and “issued a poor
performance rating.” (Id. at ¶¶
18-19). She asserts that she was also disciplined for failing
to process a payment while she was on bereavement leave.
(Id. at ¶ 20).
claims are governed by the narrow standards set forth in the
Restatement Second of Torts, § 46. Gaylord
Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 958 P.2d 128, 149 (Okla.
1998). In Breeden v. League Servs. Corp.,
575 P.2d 1374 (Okla.1978), the Oklahoma Supreme Court
Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go
beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as
atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the
facts to an average member of the community would arouse his
resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim,
‘Outrageous!' The liability ...