Kellie Pierce v. Zoetis, Inc.
818 F.3d 274
7th Cir.2016Background
- Pierce, an Indiana resident, worked as a sales representative for Zoetis and alleged repeated humiliating and hostile supervisory conduct by her manager, Lois Heuchert, culminating in termination in November 2013 for poor performance.
- Pierce complained to HR; an investigation allegedly found Heuchert behaved inappropriately and would be disciplined; Pierce later alleges retaliation (higher quotas, reimbursement difficulties) and then termination.
- Pierce sued Zoetis and Heuchert in diversity federal court asserting Indiana-law wrongful termination and tortious interference with business relationships; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court held wrongful termination claims failed because Pierce alleged no exception to Indiana’s at-will employment rule; statutory remedies under Indiana Civil Rights Law were procedurally unavailable.
- The district court also dismissed the tortious-interference claim, reasoning most complained-of acts were within Heuchert’s managerial duties (so not actionable as interference by a third party) and that Indiana requires an independent illegal act (which Pierce did not adequately plead).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pierce pleaded tortious interference with a business relationship under Indiana law | Pierce contends Heuchert’s conduct (raising quotas, public humiliations, and a defamatory remark about sleeping with a coworker) intentionally interfered with Pierce’s business relations and caused pecuniary harm | Heuchert (and Zoetis) argue most acts were within supervisory duties (not actionable interference) and Pierce failed to allege any independent illegal act or pecuniary harm required by Indiana law | Affirmed dismissal: Pierce’s allegations either fall within scope of supervisory duties or fail to plead the required independent illegal act and pecuniary harm; tortious interference claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Rice v. Hulsey, 829 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (elements of tortious interference under Indiana law)
- Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (defamation does not satisfy the independent illegal-act requirement for tortious interference)
- Brazauskus v. Fort Wayne–South Bend Diocese, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. 2003) (Indiana requires an independent illegal action for tortious interference)
- Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana University, 333 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (acts within agent’s duties do not give rise to tortious interference)
- Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 1973) (narrow statutory-right exception to at-will employment)
- Meyers v. Meyers, 861 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. 2007) (statement of Indiana at-will employment rule)