United States District Court, D. Colorado
For Therese Byorick, Plaintiff: Bradley John Sherman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cornish & Dell'Olio, Colorado Springs, CO.
For Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant: Erin Ashley Webber, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alyson Alexis Smith, Littler Mendelson, PC-Denver, Denver, CO.
For CAS Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant: Matthew Watkins Stiles, LEAD ATTORNEY, Allen Brantley Bennett, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Birmingham, AL.
For Boecore Inc, Movant: Raymond Myles Deeny, LEAD ATTORNEY, Beth Ann Lennon, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.-Denver, Denver, CO.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
William J. Martínez, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Therese Byorick (" Plaintiff" ) brings this action for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e et seq. (" Title VII" ), against Defendants CAS, Inc. (" CAS" ) and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (" Northrop" ). CAS filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which is now before the Court (" Motion" ). (ECF No. 60.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
The following facts and allegations are gathered from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (" Complaint" ). (ECF No. 56.) Northrop was the primary contractor on the Missile Defense Agency JRDC contract (" JRDC Contract" ) at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. ( Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was employed by one of Northrop's subcontractors, CAS. ( Id. ) Plaintiff applied for, and received, a position on the JRDC Contract after Northrop's staffing agency approved her application. ( Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff worked under the direct supervision of Ron Sintas, an employee of another subcontractor, Boecore, Inc. ( Id. at 4, 6.) Mr. Sintas allegedly sexually harassed Plaintiff during her employment. ( Id. at 6.) Plaintiff reported the harassment to CAS, which CAS reported to Boecore. ( Id. at 7.) Boecore concluded that Mr. Sintas acted inappropriately and he was removed from the JRDC Contract. ( Id. ) Plaintiff then
expressed her concerns to CAS's Human Resources Department that Northrop would retaliate against her. ( Id. ) On November 1, 2013, Northrop eliminated Plaintiff's position on the JRDC Contract. ( Id. at 5-6.) However, Plaintiff remained employed with CAS until February 20, 2014, at which time CAS terminated her employment after failing to find her a replacement position. ( Id. at 12.) Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to materially adverse employment actions from CAS and Northrop in retaliation for her sexual harassment complaints. ( Id. at 13.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim in a complaint for " failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to " assume the truth of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). In ruling on such a motion, the dispositive inquiry is " whether the complaint contains 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Granting a motion to dismiss " is a harsh remedy which must be cautiously studied, not only to effectuate the spirit of the liberal rules of pleading but also to protect the interests of justice." Dias v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). " Thus, 'a ...