Friday v. Magnifique Parfumes and Cosmetics, Inc.
3:17-cv-00380
N.D. Ind.Dec 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michelle Friday sued her former employer, Perfumania, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and sex discrimination under Title VII after adverse treatment and termination related to a hand condition.
- Complaint included a separate state-law Count 3 for negligent hiring, training, or supervision and vicarious liability, aiming to hold Perfumania responsible for its supervisor’s conduct.
- Perfumania moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing Count 3 fails to state a claim under Indiana law.
- The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6)/12(c) plausibility standard and treated the complaint’s allegations as true.
- Indiana law adopts Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 for negligent hiring/training/supervision, which applies only when the employee acts outside the scope of employment; the complaint expressly alleged the supervisor acted within the scope of his employment.
- The court found no alleged underlying tort to support respondeat superior liability distinct from the ADA and Title VII employer-liability frameworks, and thus granted judgment on the pleadings as to Count 3; Counts 1 and 2 remain pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count 3 (negligent hiring/training/supervision) states a claim under Indiana law | Friday contended that negligent-supervision/hiring evidence is relevant (esp. for punitive damages) and that she should be allowed to proceed | Perfumania argued Count 3 fails because Indiana §317-based claims require the employee acted outside the scope of employment, which is not pled | Dismissed: complaint pleads supervisor acted within scope of employment, so §317 claim not viable |
| Whether respondeat superior/vicarious liability theory in Count 3 states an independent tort claim | Friday asserted employer should be liable for supervisor’s wrongful acts | Perfumania argued respondeat superior requires an underlying tort; ADA/Title VII provide distinct employer-liability standards and do not create a state tort | Dismissed: no underlying tort alleged; federal statutory standards govern employer liability, so state tort theory fails |
| Whether pleading punitive-damages-related evidence converts evidence into a standalone negligence claim | Friday argued punitive-damages request justifies negligent-supervision count | Perfumania argued relevance of evidence does not cure failure to plead required elements of a claim | Rejected: punitive damages request does not substitute for pleading required elements; evidence admissibility is separate issue |
| Whether failure to plead "outside scope" can be cured later or by admissions | Friday cited cases allowing negligent-supervision evidence where employer admits scope issues | Perfumania noted this is a pleading-stage motion | Held: the motion tests pleading sufficiency; absent allegations that employee acted outside scope, the §317 claim is not adequately pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2017) (Rule 12(c) standard same as Rule 12(b)(6))
- Matrix IV, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 649 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2011) (court must accept complaint allegations as true on 12(b)(6)/(c))
- Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard and reliance on Iqbal/Twombly)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Sedam v. 2JR Pizza Enters., LLC, 84 N.E.3d 1174 (Ind. 2017) (Indiana adopts Restatement §317; applies only when employee acts outside scope of employment)
- Hansen v. Bd. of Trs. of Hamilton Se. Sch. Corp., 551 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussing Indiana law on negligent hiring/supervision and scope requirement)
- Ali v. Alliance Home Health Care, LLC, 53 N.E.3d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (respondeat superior requires an underlying tort)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (federal statutes set standards for employer liability under Title VII)
- Levinson v. Citizens Nat’l of Evansville, 644 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (discusses interplay of negligent-supervision theory and admissions about scope of employment)