Bowie v. Hodge

District Court, E.D. Louisiana·Decided June 11, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01218·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TRINA BOWIE, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff

VERSUS NO. 20-1218

DARNELY HODGE, SR., ET AL., SECTION: “E” (1) Defendants

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Partial Motion to Dismiss and In the Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Defendants Darnley R. Hodge, Sr., Jerry Martin, Michael Laughlin, and Marlin N. Gusman.1 For the following reasons, the Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement is GRANTED, and the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BACKGROUND2 On or about March 7, 2018, Plaintiff was hired as the Director of Human Resources for the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”).3 Plaintiff alleges she began experiencing sexual harassment from the inception of her employment at OPSO. On or about March 7, 2018, as she was walking up the steps to the entrance office building, Defendant Martin, a unit manager employed at the prison, “made derogatory sexual remarks” to Plaintiff which she describes as a “cat call.”4 Plaintiff was “later told defendant Martin was protected by Chief of Investigations defendant Michael Laughlin, and not to mess with him if she wanted continued employment at OPSO.”5 Further, Defendant Hodge allegedly

1 R. Doc. 10. Plaintiff Trina Bowie opposes this motion. R. Doc. 14. Defendants filed a reply. R. Doc. 18. 2 The facts provided herein are as alleged in Plaintiff’s state court petition, R. Doc. 1-1. 3 R. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 3. 4 Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. 5 Id. at ¶ 7. told Plaintiff “not to get involved with employees reporting sexual harassment incidents at OPSO after she briefed him about the complaints.”6 According to Plaintiff, during her employment at OPSO, she and Defendant Hodge had “two heated discussions” over Hodge’s refusal to let her make an investigative report after an employee alleged a sexual harassment incident.7

After Plaintiff informed Defendant Hodge that she is required to document reported sexual harassment incidents, Defendant Hodge allegedly went out of his way to physically bump into Plaintiff “if he had an occasion to stand next to [her],” which embarrassed and humiliated Plaintiff.8 Plaintiff alleges the physical contact escalated and, at various times between June 4, 2018 and December 8, 2018, Defendant Hodge would “touch or rub plaintiff’s leg, without her consent,” when he sat next to her during meetings.9 Further, Defendant Hodge allegedly would say “explicit things to her” and, on several occasions, “rub[bed] her shoulders” and “brush[ed] against [her] breasts with his body.”10 On one incident, after Plaintiff and Defendant Hodge went to dinner, Defendant Hodge allegedly “tried to kiss her” and “tried to insert his fingers into plaintiff’s vagina, without her consent.”11

In a separate series of events occurring around January 2019, Plaintiff alleges she was informed by an Internal Auditor, Jane Dimitry, that the state of the OPSO’s Civil Financial Records were a “mess” and, as a result, OPSO employees were being deprived of the full benefit of their pension contributions.12 Plaintiff alleges she “reported what Ms.

6 Id. at ¶ 10. 7 Id. at ¶ 26. 8 Id. at ¶¶ 12-14. 9 Id. at ¶ 15. 10 Id. at ¶ 17. 11 Id. at ¶¶ 21-22. 12 Id. at ¶ 35. Dimitry told her to both defendant Hodge, and his supervisor,” and Defendant Hodge “instructed plaintiff not to get involved with the old pension plan.”13 Plaintiff appears to allege she also informed Defendant Hodge’s supervisor her concerns regarding sexual harassment incidents at OPSO. During a meeting held in March 2019, with several attendants present, Defendant

Hodge allegedly, “in an intimidating tone,” repeated all the violations Plaintiff had reported to Defendant Hodge’s supervisor concerning “abuse of pension money benefits, sexual harassment, treatment of women and his falling in line with defendant Laughlin’s corruption” and, referring to Plaintiff, Defendant Hodge stated: “there is a snake at the table and I know who you are.”14 Several days later, Plaintiff “made a formal response to Defendant Hodge’s previous remark there was a ‘snake at the table.’”15 According to Plaintiff, “[s]hortly thereafter she was summoned to defendant Hodge’s office and wrongfully fired.”16 On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Hodge, Martin, Laughlin, Gusman, and AB Insurance Company in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.17 In her state court petition, Plaintiff alleges her “petition satisfies the

criteria for a sexual harassment claim and hostile work environment.”18 In addition, Plaintiff “claims ‘whistleblower’ status.”19 In paragraph 67 of her petition, Plaintiff sets

13 Id. at ¶¶ 44-45. 14 Id. at ¶¶ 49-50, 51. 15 Id. at ¶ 54. 16 Id. at ¶ 55. 17 R. Doc. 1-1. Plaintiff alleges Defendant AB Insurance Company is a “liability insurer of defendants Hodge, Martin, Laughlin, and Gusman.” Id. at ¶ 1(E). To date, Plaintiff has neither provided the true identity of this insurance company nor served any insurance company connected with this lawsuit. 18 R. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 60. 19 Id. at ¶ 59. forth the following actions of Defendant Gusman which allegedly constitute “negligence and breach of [his] duties to plaintiff”:  Failing to put in writing and enforcing policies and procedures consistent with the laws and Constitution of the State of Louisiana;

 Failing to grant plaintiff all of the rights and privileges she is guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the State of Louisiana as a hired civil servant;

 Wrongfully terminating petitioner without due process and granting her whistle blower protection;

 Failing to properly report defendant Hodge for his unconstitutional and retaliatory activities;

 Failing to properly supervise defendants Martin and Laughlin;

 Failing to prevent plaintiff from being the victim of intimidation, harassment, and retaliatory firing;

 Failing to seek recusal of defendant Hodge from conducting investigations on complaints filed by plaintiff and against plaintiff because he had an inherent conflict of interest in the outcome of both;

 Failing to put in writing and enforcing policies and procedures guaranteeing Plaintiff minimum due process standards and whistle blower protection procedures to be followed by OPSO personnel; and

 Any other acts of negligence or breach of duties brought forth during the course of trial.20

Plaintiff additionally alleges “Defendant[] Gusman is . . . liable under the theory of respondeat superior.”21 Also, in paragraph 67 of her petition, Plaintiff sets forth following actions of Defendant Martin and Defendant Laughlin which allegedly constitute “negligence and breach of their duties to plaintiff”:

20 Id. at ¶ 67(A)(1)-(9). 21 Id. at ¶ 68.  Failing to guarantee petitioner her rights provided by state law, and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana;

 Failing to timely take corrective action to protect plaintiff’s rights;

 Laughlin’s failure to properly supervise Martin;

 Participating and allowing third parties to intimidate, and harass plaintiff;

 Participating in and allowing the retaliatory firing of plaintiff;

 Wrongful termination of petitioner without due process and protection as a whistle blower; and

 Any other acts of negligence or breach of duties brought forth during the course of trial.22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI