Closser v. P.C.C.W. Teleservices (US) Inc.
4:21-cv-03040
| D. Neb. | Apr 2, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff filed an in forma pauperis complaint alleging Title VII and Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA) claims after being fired in December 2019. EEOC right-to-sue issued November 25, 2020.
- Plaintiff alleges she reported a supervisor’s sexual harassment of a coworker to site director Doug Garrison in December 2018; the accused supervisor was suspended for three days and plaintiff temporarily performed his duties.
- Beginning July 2019, plaintiff complained to HR representative Angel Slaughter about Garrison’s conduct; she later spoke with HR Manager Jewel Thomas in November–December 2019.
- HR conducted an investigation that reportedly found poor management but not validated sexual-harassment allegations; Thomas terminated plaintiff December 10, 2019 for attendance and behavior.
- Court conducted initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), found the complaint failed to state plausible Title VII/NFEPA or Nebraska common-law claims, but granted 30 days to file an amended complaint and warned supervisors cannot be sued personally under Title VII/NFEPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII/NFEPA retaliation | Plaintiff reported sexual harassment (Dec 2018) and later was terminated (Dec 2019); termination was retaliation | Alleged incidents are not materially adverse; long (12‑month) gap and lack of facts linking report to termination | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible retaliation; leave to amend 30 days |
| Hostile work environment / sexual harassment | Garrison’s repeated insults and assignments created a hostile environment based on sex | Conduct alleged (name‑calling, ostracism, extra duties) is not severe or pervasive for Title VII/NFEPA | Dismissed—allegations insufficient to show hostile work environment |
| State tort/contracts (IIED, negligent infliction, breach, wage claims, misrepresentation, tortious interference) | Asserts multiple Nebraska causes of action arising from harassment and firing | Claims are pleaded as labels and conclusions without required factual detail or elements | Dismissed for failure to plead facts supporting elements; amendment permitted but deficiencies identified |
| Personal liability of supervisors under Title VII/NFEPA | Plaintiff named HR and site supervisors as defendants | Supervisors cannot be held liable individually under Title VII/NFEPA | Court warned supervisors (Garrison, Slaughter, Thomas) are not proper Title VII/NFEPA defendants and should not be named if repleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must permit reasonable inference of liability)
- Lopez v. Whirlpool Corp., 989 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2021) (elements of Title VII retaliation and protected activity standard)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (definition of materially adverse employment action in retaliation context)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (complaint need not plead a prima facie case but must be plausible)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (hostile work environment requires severe or pervasive conduct)
- McKey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n, 978 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2020) (temporal proximity limits and need for additional evidence to show causation)
- Roark v. City of Hazen, 189 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 1999) (supervisors are not individually liable under Title VII)