Opinion
Civil Action 20-1227
07-08-2021
BARBARA CASSIDY, Plaintiff, v. CONSOL ENERGY, INC, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
W. Scott Hardy, United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2021, upon consideration of Plaintiff s second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 25) and Defendant's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 27), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs initial Complaint, filed on August 18, 2020, alleges claims of employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2OOOe et seq. (as amended) ("Title VII"), the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (as amended), the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. (Docket No. 1). On December 4, 2020, Defendant CONSOL Energy, Inc. ("CONSOL") filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses wherein it denied that it employed Plaintiff, and averred that Plaintiff was employed instead by CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC ("CONSOL PA"). (Docket No. 11, ¶ 8). On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 19). After the parties submitted briefs (Docket Nos. 22, 23), on April 1, 2021, the Court entered a Memorandum Order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 24). Plaintiff then filed a second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint along with another proposed Amended Complaint (Docket Nos. 25 and 25-1), and Defendant filed a Response in Opposition thereto (Docket No. 27). This newest Motion to Amend Complaint is now ripe for decision.
Once again, Plaintiff proposes to amend her Complaint in order to add CONSOL PA as a defendant but still retain CONSOL as a defendant, contending that CONSOL PA and CONSOL should both remain in the case because they were her "joint employers." (Docket Nos. 25, 25-1). In response to Plaintiffs motion, CONSOL argues that Plaintiffs second attempt at amending her Complaint would still be futile because it yet again fails to aver facts sufficient to establish that CONSOL was Plaintiff s joint employer such that it would be subject to liability under Title VII.
As set forth in the Court's Memorandum Order dated April 1, 2021 (Docket No. 24), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) directs courts to give leave freely to amend a pleading "when justice so requires," but not when the proposed amendment would be futile. See Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.. 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2003), as amended (Jan. 20, 2004). "An amendment is futile if the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir. 2000). In determining whether an amendment is futile, "the district court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6)." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, l434(3dCir. 1997). In order 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Supreme Court has noted that 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. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Again, as set forth in the Court's earlier Memorandum Order, the Third Circuit has held that "[t]wo entities may be 'co-employers' or 'joint employers' of one employee for purposes of Title VII." Faush v. Tuesday Morning. Inc.. 808 F.3d 208, 215 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Graves v. Lowery, 117 F.3d 723, 727 (3d Cir. 1997)). "A joint employment relationship exists when 'two entities exercise significant control over the same employees.'" Doe v. McDonald's USA LLC, No. 19-5925, 2020 WL 7133520, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2020) (quoting Graves. 117 F.3d at 727)); see also Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden. 503 U.S. 318, 323-24 (1992). In "determining whether an entity exercises significant control with another employer," district courts in the Third Circuit have considered the following factors:
(1) the entity's "authority to hire and fire employees, promulgate work rules and assignments, and set conditions of employment, including compensation, benefits, and hours"; (2) its "day-to-day supervision of employees, including employee discipline"; and (3) its "control of employee records, including payroll, insurance, taxes and the like."Plaso v. IJKG. LLC. 553 Fed.Appx. 199, 204-05 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing a collection of cases).
Here, Plaintiffs newly proposed Amended Complaint adds averments that CONSOL provided Plaintiff a termination letter and severance agreement following receipt of a letter from CONSOL PA informing her she would be subjected to a layoff. (See Docket No. 25-1, ¶ 13 (Plaintiffs proposed Amended Complaint)). In addition to averments that CONSOL PA "maintained significant control over the day-to-day operations," Plaintiff additionally avers: (i) that she received an employee handbook from CONSOL and maintained communications with CONSOL's human resources department; (ii) that she applied for vacant positions through CONSOL; (iii) that her performance was reviewed by CONSOL; (iv) that her employment records, including payroll information and stock awards, were maintained by CONSOL; and (v) that she received written communications "almost exclusively" on CONSOL letterhead. (See id. ¶ 14). Plaintiff also avers that CONSOL and CONSOL PA "share a headquarters and a website" and "collectively exercised significant control over Plaintiffs employment, including maintaining the authority to promulgate work rules and assignments, day-to-day supervision and control of employee records." (See Id. ¶ 11).
While Defendant contends that these averments contained in Plaintiffs second proposed Amended Complaint lack the "factual ingredients necessary for the Court to properly assess which entity exercised 'significant control' over Plaintiff, in which ways, and through whom" (Docket No. 27 at 4), the Court finds that these newly added factual averments set forth in the proposed Amended Complaint regarding CONSOL's and CONSOL PA's putative authority over Plaintiff and other employees, their putative supervision of such employees, or their putative control of employee records, are sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief against CONSOL and CONSOL PA as Plaintiffs joint employers. See Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678; Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 570. Of course, CONSOL and CONSOL PA will have the opportunity during discovery to scrutinize the evidence proffered or otherwise elicited regarding this joint employer issue and to seek dismissal of such claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or other appropriate procedural vehicles, but at this pleading stage, Plaintiffs proposed Amended Complaint would not be futile since it does contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, plausibly to establish that CONSOL and CONSOL PA jointly employed Plaintiff such that they both could be subject to liability under Title VII.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her Amended Complaint by July 15, 2021. and Defendants shall file their response(s) in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3) by July 29, 2021.