United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ORDER
JAMES
S. MOODY. JR. JUDGE
THIS
CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant RealCo Capital
Partners II, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim (Dkt. 10) and Plaintiff Kristin Coto's Response
in Opposition (Dkt. 11). The Court, having reviewed the
motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the
premises, concludes that RealCo's motion should be
denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
alleges pregnancy and gender discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights
Act (“FCRA”) against both Defendants, Cardinal
Group Management and Advisory, LLC and RealCo Capital
Partners II, LLC. Plaintiff's amended complaint states
that Defendants operated as her joint employer. Specifically,
during the relevant time, Cardinal managed residential
properties, including Campus Club USF LLC and College Court
USF LLC (the “subject properties”) and RealCo was
the owner of the subject properties. At all material times,
Plaintiff was employed as a Community Manager for the subject
properties.
Plaintiff
alleges that in 2016, RealCo informed Plaintiff that it
planned on selling the properties she managed. RealCo
requested that Plaintiff remain the Community Manager
throughout the process of the sale because of her “hard
work and her exceptional job with the properties.”
Around this same time, Plaintiff advised Defendants that she
was pregnant. On or about February 15, 2016, Cardinal's
human resources employee sent Plaintiff an email outlining
the procedures for a proposed maternity leave.
In
March 2016, Plaintiff received her first write up from
Cardinal for an alleged failure to reach her leasing goals.
This write up was received just days after Plaintiff had
received an e-mail from Cardinal's National Trainer
congratulating Plaintiff on receiving a 100 percent score on
a work-related goal.
After
receiving the write up, Plaintiff reached out to her
supervisors to determine how many write ups would result in
her termination and to receive assistance with achieving her
leasing goals. Defendants ignored Plaintiff. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants provided assistance to other
Community Managers to help them achieve their leasing goals
during the relevant time.
On
March 28, 2016, Plaintiff spoke to Thomas Holtman,
RealCo's Director of Construction and Operations, and
confided in him that she was concerned for her future
employment with Defendants. During this conversation, Holtman
informed Plaintiff that her maternity leave was “very
bad timing.” That same day, Plaintiff received a second
write up from Cardinal for her purported failure to reach her
leasing goals.
On
March 30, 2016, Plaintiff's employment with Defendants
was terminated. The reason stated was her failure to meet her
leasing goals, for which she had received two write ups.
Plaintiff claims that other Community Managers similarly
failed to meet their leasing goals but were not terminated.
Plaintiff alleges violations of Title VII and the FCRA
because Defendants' real reason for terminating her was
based on her pregnancy.
The
amended complaint states that, prior to filing this action,
Plaintiff timely filed a written Charge of Discrimination
with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”), which was duly filed with
the Florida Commission on Human Relations
(“FCHR”). On or about January 3, 2017, the EEOC
issued a Notice of Right to Sue. Plaintiff filed this action
on March 27, 2017, less than ninety days after her receipt of
the Notice of Right to Sue.
RealCo
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. RealCo makes two arguments: (1) it
was not a “joint employer” and (2) Plaintiff
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to
RealCo.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must
accept all factual allegations contained in the complaint as
true, and view the facts in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93-94 (2007). However, unlike factual allegations,
conclusions in a pleading “are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). On the contrary, legal conclusions
“must be supported by factual allegations.”
Id. Indeed, “conclusory allegations,
...