1 Plaintiffs in their arguments rely heavily on the notice pleading standard espoused in Conley v. “nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Twombly, 550 U.S. A party moving to dismiss nonetheless bears a weighty burden. How much specificity is required may vary from case to case, but “‘the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.’” McCauley, 671 F.3d at 616 (quoting Swanson v. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to withstand the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). At minimum, a plaintiff is required to support its complaint with “‘some specific facts.’” McCauley v. Standard of Review “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Two of the Defendant's claims were dismissed, and the remainder are pending. Before Plaintiffs were 3 Case 4:20-cv-00228-SEB-DML Document 31 Filed 08/04/21 of 15 PageID #: 122 able to do so, however, Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiffs. Leken's mother, contacted Defendant and left a message stating that she believed Defendant's actions were unlawful and that Plaintiffs would be hiring an attorney and pursuing claims for sex discrimination and retaliation against Defendant. Though initially giving no reason for the terminations, Defendant later claimed that they were due to Plaintiffs' filing of false reports with law enforcement. Approximately one week later, Defendant also terminated Mr. Taylor returned to Defendant's property to resume his residency there, and almost immediately, Defendant terminated Ms. Taylor's charges were eventually dropped, and he was released from jail.
Taylor was preliminarily charged with multiple parole violations. Taylor's parole officer, several police officers arrived at Defendant's property. Taylor's parole officer and informed him of their concerns,, and approximately one week after Mrs. When Defendant failed to take any corrective action against Mr. Lekens in a barn and directly threatened her. Lee thereafter lodged verbal 2 Case 4:20-cv-00228-SEB-DML Document 31 Filed 08/04/21 of 15 PageID #: 121 complaints with Defendant on at least two occasions. After several such incidents of discriminatory and harassing behavior by Mr. Taylor's discriminatory and harassing behavior was based on Mrs. He threatened retribution in the event that Mrs. Lee to fear for their safety by sometimes physically cornering and isolating them. These behaviors included unwanted physical touching of the women's upper thighs, unwanted propositions for sex and dates, and threatening statements regarding weapons that Mr. Taylor began engaging in discriminatory and harassing behavior against Mrs. Taylor had recently been released from prison and was on parole at the time of his employment. Taylor") as a farm laborer, who subsequently moved onto Defendant's premises near Mr. On or about October 2018, Defendant hired David Brent Taylor ("Mr. Lee all met or exceeded the legitimate employment performance expectations of Defendant. Lee were required to maintain residence on Defendant's premises, a horse farm located in Jackson County, Indiana. Lee was also hired by Defendant to work during this same time. Lekens, a 1 Case 4:20-cv-00228-SEB-DML Document 31 Filed 08/04/21 of 15 PageID #: 120 married couple, were employed by Defendant from June through September 2018. Factual Background Plaintiffs' claims are based on the following factual allegations, which we accept as true in ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
For the reasons detailed in this entry, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. On February 2, 2021, Defendant moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). § 2000e, et seq., as well as state law claims of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ("Defendant") with claims of sex discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Banks") initiated this action on November 10, 2020, charging Defendant Swifty Farms, Inc. 4:20-cv-00228-SEB-DML ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs Chelsie Lekens ("Mrs. 31 Case 4:20-cv-00228-SEB-DML Document 31 Filed 08/04/21 of 15 PageID #: 119 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION CHELSIE LEKENS, JACOB LEKENS, OLIVIA LEE, ROBIN BANKS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v.
0 kommentar(er)
