Duke-Roser v. Sisson
1:12-cv-02414
D. Colo.May 28, 2013Background
- Duke-Rosser sued Dr. Sisson, Western Healthcare Network, and Integrated Medical Consultants alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the CAA.
- She was employed December 2009 as Director of Legal Case Management and alleges Dr. Sisson belittled female employees and paid females less than males.
- Duke-Rosser filed an EEOC complaint in November 2009; she was suspended January 28, 2011 without stated reason and terminated February 4, 2011.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of 15+ employees, individual capacity liability of a supervisor, and lack of jurisdiction over CAA claims.
- The court held that Title VII requires 15+ employees for coverage and that Duke-Rosser failed to plead 15+ employees, warranting dismissal of Title VII claims with prejudice.
- Because all federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the CAA claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Title VII apply when defendants employ fewer than 15 employees? | Duke-Rosser would amend to plead employee counts. | Title VII requires 15+ employees; claims fail otherwise. | Title VII claims dismissed for failure to plead 15+ employees. |
| Are supervisors individually liable under Title VII? | Not specified; focus on employer liability. | Supervisors cannot be sued in individual capacity under Title VII. | Not reached as Title VII claims dismissed on threshold issue; employer liability governs. |
| Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over CAA claims? | Maintain state-law claims in federal court. | Decline supplemental jurisdiction if federal claims are dismissed. | Declined supplemental jurisdiction; CAA claims dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (threshold 15-employee requirement is a claim element, not jurisdictional)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (12(b)(6) standard and plausibility in the Tenth Circuit)
- Dennis v. Watco Cos., Inc., 631 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2011) (pleading sufficiency to state a claim)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive motion to dismiss)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (threshold number of employees is an element, not jurisdiction)