United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
JENNIFER M. GLORE, Plaintiff,
RXC ACQUISITION COMPANY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. Hale, Judge United States District Court
Jennifer Glore alleges that her employer, Defendant RXC
Acquisition Company, discriminated against her, in violation
of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. (D.N. 1-1) Glore contends
that RXC was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising
her co-workers; wrongfully terminated her; and intentionally
caused her to suffer emotional distress. (Id.) RXC
asks the Court to dismiss Glore's complaint for failure
to state a claim. (D.N. 5-1) After careful consideration, the
Court concludes that Glore has failed to state a plausible
claim for relief.
alleges that while working for RXC, she was subjected to
unspecified “race-based, offensive” treatment by
her co-workers. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 7) Although Glore
reported this discriminatory conduct, RXC did not remedy the
problem; instead, RXC allegedly discharged Glore in
retaliation for her complaints. (Id., PageID # 9)
Glore claims to have suffered physical and mental distress as
a result of RXC's actions. (Id., PageID # 7) She
seeks compensatory and punitive damages for RXC's alleged
violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act; wrongful
termination; negligent hiring, retention and supervision; and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. (D.N. 1-1) RXC
asks the Court to dismiss Glore's claims on the ground
that she has failed to satisfy the federal pleading standard.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all civil
proceedings in federal district courts, including removed
cases. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, 81(c); see also Armstrong v.
Shirvell, 596 Fed.Appx. 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2015);
Vanhook v. Somerset Health Facilities, LP, 67
F.Supp.3d 810, 815 (E.D. Ky. 2014). Thus, “federal
pleading requirements under Rule 8 and the
Twombly-Iqbal standard apply to removed complaints,
even where the state pleading standard is more
lenient.”Vanhook, 67 F.Supp.3d at 815.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim will
be dismissed unless the “complaint [contains]
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must
“plead factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. This requires the
plaintiff to present enough factual matter to support each
element of each of her claims. Id.; see also
Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434,
435 (6th Cir. 1988). When evaluating whether this pleading
standard has been satisfied, the Court must “accept all
the [plaintiff's] factual allegations as true and
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
[plaintiff].” Hill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
of Mich., 409 F.3d 710, 716 (6th Cir. 2005).
in the light most favorable to Glore, the complaint fails to
satisfy the federal pleading standard.
asserts that RXC violated the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
(D.N. 1-1, PageID # 7-8) In support of this claim, Glore
states merely that she was subjected to “race-based,
offensive behavior at the workplace while employed with
state a plausible claim of discrimination under the KCRA,
Glore's complaint must “allege sufficient factual
content from which a court, informed by its judicial
experience and common sense, could draw the reasonable
inference that [RXC] discriminated against her.”
Bargo v. Goodwill Indus. of Ky., Inc., 969 F.Supp.2d
819, 825 (E.D. Ky. 2013) (quoting Keys v. Humana,
684 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2012)). Glore's complaint is
devoid of any factual content; she claims discrimination
without alleging any specific instance of such conduct. (D.N.
1-1, PageID # 7-9) See Levinson v. Mucker, 289
F.Supp.2d 848, 854 (W.D. Ky. 2003) (finding that plaintiff
failed to state a claim of disability discrimination because
he did not include specific facts alleging that he had a
disability); cf. Young v. Smithfield Farmland Corp.,
No. CV 6: 17-143-DCR, 2017 WL 4287546, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Sept.
27, 2017) (finding that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim
of sex discrimination under the KCRA because she included
specific instances of disparate treatment and named those who
were allegedly discriminating against her). Glore's bare
assertion that she was “subjected to race-based,
offensive behavior” does not provide enough factual
information for the Court to infer discrimination.
(Id., PageID # 7) Therefore, Glore did not provide
the factual basis necessary to state a plausible claim of
discrimination under the KCRA.
Count Two of her complaint, Glore contends that RXC was
negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising the employees
who discriminated against her. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 7-8) To
make out a claim for negligent hiring, retention, or
supervision under Kentucky law, a plaintiff must allege that
the “employer knew or had reason to know of the risk
created by the employee.” Hampton v. Bob Evans
Transp. Co., No. CV 6: 18-143-DCR, 2018 WL 3213609, at
*2-3 (E.D. Ky. June 29, 2018) (quoting Ten Broeck Dupont,
Inc. v. Brooks, 283 S.W.3d 705, 734 (Ky. 2009)); see
also Booker, 350 F.3d at 518; Stalbosky v.
Belew, 205 F.3d 890, 894 (6th Cir. 2000); Virgil v.
City of Newport, No. CV 16-224-DLB-CJS, 2018 WL 344986,
at *16 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2018). In Hampton, the
plaintiff alleged that “Bob Evans[ ] negligently
trained, hired and/or supervised [its employee.” 2018
WL 3213609, at *2. The court explained that Hampton's
complaint did not satisfy the federal pleading standard
because “bare legal conclusions unsupported by factual
allegations, ” do not establish a plausible claim for
relief. Id. at 3.
Glore's complaint does not include any factual content to
support a claim of negligent hiring, retention, or
supervision. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 7-8) Glore merely states
that “[she] informed management of continued problems
stemming from discriminatory behavior from other employees,
[but RXC] failed and refused to take any corrective