Opinion
No. C01-0067
February 6, 2002
ORDER
This matter comes before the court pursuant to the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (docket number 12). The plaintiff wants to add two pendent state law tort claims against an individual correctional officer to her original complaint alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., by her previous employer, the Iowa Department of Corrections. The defendant resists the amendment contending that this court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is granted.
Factual Background
The plaintiff alleges that as a Correctional Officer at the Anamosa State Penitentiary in Anamosa, Iowa, she was subjected to gender based verbal and physical harassment. She alleges that this violence and harassment was created and tolerated by the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC). The plaintiff contends that because of the unwillingness of the IDOC to stop the harassment, she was forced to resign. She cites a pattern of "harassment directed at her, her fear of physical danger, and her supervisors' unwillingness to investigate or confront the problem" as reasons for her resignation. Her amended complaint seeks to add claims against a former co-worker, individually, for assault and battery. These claims arose out of alleged incidents involving the plaintiff and the defendant, Darren Pierce, at the Anamosa Penitentiary. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Pierce slapped her on the back hard enough to cause her to lose her balance, slammed doors in her face, and slammed her into a walkway wall when the two passed each other.
The plaintiff also alleges that the IDOC violated Title VII when it failed to stop the harassment the plaintiff was experiencing at work. Part of this harassment was allegedly being done by defendant Pierce. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Pierce made a disparaging comment about women in the plaintiff's presence. The plaintiff alleges that after complaining of the event she was told by a supervisor with the IDOC, "We've always had this problem and there is no way to stop it." When the plaintiff felt as though nothing was being done to remedy the situation, she resigned.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear and decide state-law claims along with federal-law claims when they are "so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they for part of the same case or controversy." See Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 387 (1998).
Title 28 of the United States Code section 1367 states:
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if — (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The defendant urges the court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims based on subsections 1, 2, and 4 of section 1367(c). The defendant contends that the plaintiff should not be able to bring suit against IDOC and Mr. Pierce individually. The defendant argues that the very nature of the plaintiff's Title VII claims presumes that the individuals were involved in their respective capacities as employees. The employees are granted sovereign immunity as employees of a state agency and the defendant argues that the plaintiff should not be able to circumvent sovereign immunity by simply adding claims to the complaint alleging state law torts. The defendant finishes the argument by stating that the issues of sovereign immunity and the inconsistency between the assault and battery claims and the Title VII creates novel and complex state law issues that predominate the Title VII claim.
The state law claims are closely related to the Title VII claim that establishes original jurisdiction in the district court. The claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the plaintiff's federal claims and when the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try all the claims in one judicial proceeding." Frederick v. Simpson College, 160 F. Supp.2d 1033 (S.D.Iowa 2001); quoting, Cossette v. Minnesota Power Light, 188 F.3d 964, 973 (8th Cir. 1999). The very same facts and evidence would need to be produced to prove the state law claims as would need to be produced to prove the Title VII claim. "If a plaintiff could not raise his pendant state issues in federal court he would have to go to the expense and ordeal of litigating two separate but related trials, or of bringing all claims in the state court. One choice denies efficiency and expediency, and the other is unfair because it discourages him from presenting his federal claims in federal court." See Luncsford v. Nix, 848 F. Supp. 859, 862 (S.D.Iowa 1994); quoting, Tompkins v. Stuttgart School District No. 22, 787 F.2d 439, 442 (8th Cir. 1986). The underlying Title VII claim gives the district court original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The state law claims are not novel or complex, the state claims do not predominate the federal claims, and there are no exceptional circumstances or compelling reason for the district court to decline jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED.
The plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (docket number 12) is granted.