Amber Gelinas, DMD v. Southern Dentistry, P.C., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama reviewed objections to a Report and Recommendation concerning defendants' motion to dismiss in an employment dispute involving pregnancy accommodation, retaliation, defamation, outrage, fraud, and Alabama-law claims. The court adopted the recommendation in part and rejected it in part, allowing Counts 1–5, 10, and 11 to proceed while dismissing Counts 6, 7, and 9 without prejudice and Counts 8 and 12 with prejudice.

Holdings

1. A request for accommodation may be unlawfully denied through an unreasonable delay, and whether the delay is reasonable generally depends on the totality of the circumstances. Because the reasonableness of the alleged one-month delay could not be determined from the pleadings alone, Counts 1 and 4 survived the motion to dismiss.
2. Counts 6 and 7 were dismissed without prejudice because the fraud allegations failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s particularity requirement.
3. The Alabama Consumer Identity Protection Act claim in Count 8 was dismissed with prejudice because the alleged conduct did not fit within that statute.
4. Count 10 stated a defamation claim sufficient to survive dismissal under Rule 8. The pleading stage did not require the level of specificity demanded by the Magistrate Judge and Defendants, including identification of publication recipients or circumstances.
5. Alabama's tort of outrage is not limited to the three categories of conduct often identified in prior cases. Nevertheless, the conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. The allegations concerning refusal to accommodate a pregnant dentist's request to avoid nitrous oxide and alleged retaliation were sufficient at the pleading stage to allow Count 11 to proceed.
6. Count 12 was dismissed with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged one-month delay in accommodating Plaintiff's request related to pregnancy and nitrous-oxide exposure stated claims for failure to accommodate and retaliation-constructive discharge sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
2. Whether the fraud claims adequately satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
3. Whether the Alabama Consumer Identity Protection Act applied to the alleged conduct.
4. Whether the defamation allegations satisfied the pleading standard under Rule 8.
5. Whether the allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress, or outrage, stated a claim under Alabama law despite not falling within the three factual categories frequently recognized in prior cases.
6. Whether the negligent and wanton training, supervision, and termination claim was adequately pleaded.

Disposition

other