Sirois v. E. W. Partners, Inc.
285 F. Supp. 3d 1152
D. Haw.2018Background
- Plaintiff Alexandra Sirois, a former assistant project manager for East West Partners, Inc. (EWP) in Hawaii, alleges sex- and sexual-orientation–based hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and Hawaii Employment Practices Act (HEPA), and unpaid overtime under the FLSA.
- Sirois alleges her supervisor, Andrew Sutton, directed sexually charged marketing events that used Sutton’s wife to socialize with a wealthy client, and that Sutton taunted, filmed, and demeaned Sirois; she complained to HR Director Nicole Greener and CEO Harry Frampton but alleges they failed to investigate and ultimately terminated her.
- Sirois sued EWP and the three individual defendants (Sutton, Greener, Frampton), asserting aiding-and-abetting liability under HRS § 378-2(a) against the individuals (Count V) and other claims against EWP.
- Individual defendants moved to dismiss Count V for failure to state a claim, to strike certain “scandalous” allegations, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Greener), and for insufficient service of process.
- The court denied the motion to strike, held Sirois adequately pleaded aiding-and-abetting liability under HRS § 378-2(a) as to the individual defendants for pleading-stage purposes, found Greener subject to personal jurisdiction in Hawaii, but granted the motion insofar as service was facially improper and ordered Sirois to effect or prove proper service within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike "immaterial, impertinent, scandalous" allegations under FRCP 12(f) | Allegations about sexually charged client events, affair, and related conduct are relevant context for hostile work environment and retaliation claims | Allegations are salacious, immaterial to legal claims, and should be removed | Denied — factual details are relevant context to hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims; 12(f) disfavored absent clear lack of relevance or prejudice |
| Sufficiency of aiding-and-abetting claim under HRS § 378-2(a) (Count V) | Sirois alleges Greener and Frampton ignored complaints, aided Sutton’s conduct, and participated in termination — sufficient to plead aiding-and-abetting liability | Allegations are conclusory; aiding-and-abetting requires an affirmative act or specific intent and cannot be based on mere inaction or multiple actors | Denied — complaint pleads factual nexus that individuals worked in concert (toleration, failure to investigate, termination) sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) at pleading stage |
| Personal jurisdiction over Greener (Colorado HR director) | Greener communicated with Sirois about Hawaii workplace issues, received complaints, drafted termination letter, and facilitated call — conduct expressly aimed at Hawaii | Greener lacked minimum contacts with Hawaii; her acts were passive / administrative and not purposefully availing | Denied — specific jurisdiction exists: purposeful availment via wrongful acts aimed at a Hawaii resident, claim arises from those acts, and exercise is reasonable |
| Service of process on individual defendants | Service was attempted in Colorado on EWP VP under Colorado rule authorizing leaving process at usual place of business | Defendants contend service was improper (Sutton worked in Hawaii; no proof the VP was authorized to accept service for the individuals) | Granted in part — court found record does not show proper service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; plaintiff ordered to effect proper service or file proof within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile work environment may consist of unwelcome sexual conduct and need not be directed exclusively at the plaintiff)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (hostile work environment analysis — consider all circumstances; conduct need not be directly targeted at plaintiff)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process standard for jurisdiction)
- Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524 (Rule 12(f) purpose and disfavored status)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (employee may state hostile-environment claim from observed or pervasive misconduct not personally directed at plaintiff)