Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-1284, c/w No. 1698 Sect. "T"(2).
February 3, 2005
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion by Defendant, State of Louisiana, to dismiss the claims filed by Plaintiff, Tina Emerson, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This matter was submitted for the Court's consideration on September 8, 2004. The parties waived oral argument and the matter was taken under submission upon the briefs only. The Court, having studied the legal memoranda submitted by both parties, the evidence presented, the Court record, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised and ready to rule.
I. BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff was working as a voting poll commissioner in Jefferson Parish. Plaintiff claims that while working at the polls one day, the commissioner in charge, Delores Caminita, violated her rights by allegedly asking if she was a transvestite, by allegedly asking if she had once been a man, and by allegedly once referring to her as "he" in conversation. Plaintiff then filed the instant action, apparently contending that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of her rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
A. Arguments of the Defendant in Support of Motion to Dismiss:
The Defendant submits that, in this instance, Plaintiff's claims do not rise to the level of a sexually hostile environment. Plaintiff cites no behavior other than the isolated incident where she was referred to as "he," and where the commissioner in charge asked her if, at one time, she had been a man. Thus, Defendant submits that, taking all of Plaintiff's accusations as true, Plaintiff has not presented sufficient allegations to bring a hostile environment claim. The Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's allegations amount, at most, to "discourtesy or rudeness" which is not actionable under Title VII.
B. Arguments of the Plaintiff in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
The Plaintiff contends that the conduct was extreme since she decided to complete her shift and spent approximately seven to eight hours in the presence of Ms. Caminita after the alleged incident. Plaintiff also apparently alleges that the state failed to take corrective measures since, upon her calling Dennis Demarco to report the incident, no action was taken. Plaintiff then adjusts her claim for damages from $20,000 to $100,000.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Rule 12(b)(6) motions:
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts have found that dismissal pursuant to this provision "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowery v. Texas AM University System, 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997); Kaiser Aluminum Chem. Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true.Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002);Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may not dismiss a complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit defines this strict standard as, "The question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247, citing 5 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357, at 601 (1969).
B. The Court's Analysis:
According to Title VII, "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (2005). The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that in order to constitute a sexually hostile environment, the conduct to which the claimant is subjected "must be extreme to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment," both objectively and subjectively. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). The Courts must look at all circumstances, including (1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Id., 118 S.Ct. at 2283. Incidental, occasional or merely playful sexual utterances will rarely poison the employee's working conditions to the extent demanded for liability. Id. Discourtesy or rudeness, offhand comments and isolated incidents will not amount to discriminatory changes in terms and conditions of employment. Id.; Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has filed numerous motions in the instant action, most of which are incoherent and irrelevant. Nowhere has she alleged anything other than the incident where the commissioner in charge allegedly asked her about her sexual identity and referred to her as "he." Even taking everything Plaintiff has alleged as true, there is nothing which suggests that the embarrassment she faced was anything more than an isolated incident. Additionally, the conduct which Plaintiff has alleged was not so extreme or egregious such that it would "amount to a change in terms and conditions of employment." As such, Plaintiff has not stated a valid claim of creating a hostile environment in violation of Title VII and her claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant, State of Louisiana, be and the same hereby are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own costs.