937 F. Supp. 2d 1003
N.D. Iowa2011Background
- Blazek, a female retail wireless consultant, alleges sexual harassment and retaliation by USCC and individual defendants from April 2007 to March 2010 in Spencer, Iowa.
- Alleged harassment included coworkers discussing sexual topics, invasive questions about her sex life, viewing customers’ sexually explicit photos, and ostracism after complaints.
- Plaintiff alleged management ignored or retaliated against her complaints, causing reduced hours/pay and a proposed relocation; an investigator allegedly pressured her and accused her of impropriety.
- Plaintiff attached an Iowa Civil Rights Commission charge as Exhibit A, detailing additional incidents and supervisors’ responses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of plausible claims and insufficient basis for individual liability under the ICRA.
- Court will consider both Amended Complaint and attached Exhibit A for plausibility and potential Rule 10(c) adoption issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plausibility of harassment claim under Twombly/Iqbal | Blazek pleads multiple specific, unwelcome sexualized incidents. | Allegations are vague, conclusory, not showing sex-based discrimination. | Harassment claim plausibly alleged; denied. |
| Adequacy of retaliation claim | Allegations show protected activity and causal adverse actions. | Claims are conclusory; insufficient causal link. | Retaliation claim plausibly stated; denied. |
| Rule 10(c) adoption of Exhibit A (administrative charge) | Exhibit A should be part of the pleadings for Rule 10(c) purposes. | Adoption by reference issue; Exhibit not properly adopted. | Exhibit A may be considered; both pleadings analyzed. |
| Basis for individual liability under ICRA §216.11 and §216.6(1) | Co-workers and investigator can be liable; supervisory liability not sole route. | Liability limited to supervisors under §216.6(1) and not all co-workers. | Individual liability may attach to co-workers under §216.11; Daniels liable as supervisor; Storey dismissed. |
| Factual sufficiency to support aiding/abetting liability | Allegations show defendants aided/abetted harassment. | Bare legal conclusions; lack of supporting facts. | As to Storey: lack of factual allegations; dismissal without prejudice; others survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility required for claims to survive)
- Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2009) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculation)
- Cross v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack & Casino, Inc., 615 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of hostile environment claim; employer knowledge standard)
- Wilkie v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 638 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2011) (harassment must be severe or pervasive to be actionable)
- Johnson v. BE & K Construction Co., L.L.C., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (S.D. Iowa 2009) (aiding and abetting ICRA liability under §216.11; broad interpretation of 'person')