Nadia Rover v. Commonwealth Hotels Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ruled on Commonwealth Hotels Inc.'s motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged sexual harassment and constructive discharge. The court denied dismissal of the Title VII hostile-work-environment and constructive-discharge claims, as well as the outrage and negligent or wanton employment claims. It dismissed the invasion-of-privacy claim with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The complaint adequately stated a hostile-work-environment claim because, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court could not conclude that the two alleged propositions, together with the harassment of other female employees known to Rover, were insufficiently severe or pervasive.
2. The complaint adequately stated a Title VII constructive-discharge claim because the alleged history of sexual harassment, employer knowledge, failure to remedy the harassment, failure to respond to Rover's complaints, and resulting conditions could support an inference that the employer deliberately made her working conditions intolerable.
3. The complaint failed to state a viable Alabama invasion-of-privacy claim because the alleged sexual comments and propositions, without more, generally do not constitute an intrusion into private matters that would be sufficiently offensive or objectionable to support liability.
4. The complaint adequately stated an Alabama outrage claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage because egregious sexual harassment may support the tort, and the complaint alleged both sexual propositions and the employer's failure to correct known recurring harassment.
5. The negligent or wanton supervision and retention claims were not dismissed because they could be based at least in part on the alleged Alabama-law outrage claim, and the defendant's argument that those counts necessarily failed because the invasion-of-privacy and outrage counts failed was raised for the first time in reply.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the coworker's conduct, together with known harassment of other female employees, was sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the employer deliberately created intolerable working conditions sufficient to support a Title VII constructive-discharge claim.
3. Whether the alleged sexual comments and propositions stated an invasion-of-privacy claim under Alabama law.
4. Whether the allegations stated an Alabama outrage claim based on sexual harassment and the employer's alleged failure to correct known misconduct.
5. Whether the negligent or wanton supervision and retention claims could proceed based on an underlying Alabama tort, including outrage.
6. Whether arguments first raised in the defendant's reply should be considered.

Disposition

other