Jane Glover v. DocRx, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denied Otey White & Associates, Advertising & Publication Relations, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Jane Glover’s Title VII retaliation claim. The court held that Glover plausibly alleged that Otey White was involved as a joint employer and that, at the pleading stage, the Title VII administrative-exhaustion issue was not sufficient to dismiss the claim.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged a retaliation claim against Otey White because it asserted facts concerning the merger of DocRx's marketing division into Otey White, Glover's continued work on DocRx projects using DocRx materials, and Ward's involvement in funding her salary through Otey White. Those allegations were sufficient to satisfy Rule 8 at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
2. Failure to name Otey White in the EEOC charge did not require dismissal at the pleading stage because the naming requirement is liberally construed and the complaint plausibly alleged that Otey White and DocRx were joint employers, potentially satisfying the purposes of Title VII.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Otey White was involved in retaliatory conduct and was a joint employer with DocRx.
2. Whether the Title VII retaliation claim against Otey White was barred at the pleading stage because Otey White was not named in Plaintiff's EEOC charge.

Disposition

dismissed