Nicholas Shane Flippen v. Rolling Hills Hospital et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses motions in a pro se employment-discrimination action brought by Nicholas Shane Flippen against Rolling Hills Hospital, UHS of Delaware, Lisa Jones, and Shannon Geary. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failure to state a claim, denying the individual defendants’ service-of-process dismissal motion, and dismissing those defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 because no other viable claim was asserted against them. The recommendation also denies the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend.

Holdings

1. Allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment, even when traumatic to the plaintiff, are insufficient to establish the extreme and outrageous conduct required for an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim under Tennessee law when they do not go beyond the conduct supporting the employment-discrimination claims.
2. The motion to dismiss Jones and Geary under Rule 12(b)(5) should be denied because the court resolved their dismissal on another ground rather than dismissing them for insufficient service of process.
3. Jones and Geary should be dismissed from the action under Rule 21 because dismissal of the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim leaves no viable claim against them.
4. Leave to amend the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim should be denied because Plaintiff had already had ample opportunity to formulate the claim and his amended complaint and exhibits supplied its full factual basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Flippen's allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination plausibly stated a Tennessee intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
2. Whether Lisa Jones and Shannon Geary should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process.
3. Whether Jones and Geary should nonetheless be dismissed under Rule 21 because the only claim asserted against them was being dismissed.
4. Whether Flippen should be granted leave to amend the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Disposition

other