Defendant's Attorney: Judd R. Uhl, Mary A. Smigielski, Morsheda Hashem

Description: Louisville, Kentucky civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants claiming that they were discrminated against because of their race.


BLK is a trucking company that has terminals at the Chicago O'Hare International Airport and Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport. [DE 19]. Garrett is the president and owner of BLK. [Id.]. Lindsey, Garrett's wife, is an employee at BLK. [DE 15 at 190]. Yet Robards claims that Lindsey has acknowledged she is the “real owner” of BLK. [DE 1-1 at 19].

All five Plaintiffs are former employees of BLK who identify as African American men. [DE 18 at 259]. Robards worked as a driver for BLK from approximately March 1, 2021 to July 1, 2021 and claims he was terminated because of his race. [DE 1-1 at 12-13]. Calvin worked in the BLK warehouse from approximately May, 2021 to June, 2021 and alleges that he left BLK due to “a hostile work environment, discrimination, and inappropriate business practices.” [Id. at 13-14]. Crutcher worked as a driver for BLK from April 5, 2021 to July 1, 2021 and asserts he quit his job because he was “unwelcome, disrespected, and discriminated against.” [Id. at 14-16]. Sitegraves began working for BLK in May 2021 but does not list his end date. [Id.]. Stitegraves alleges that he quit his job at BLK as a driver due to the hostile, racist work environment. [Id. at 16-17]. Means began working for BLK in March 2020. [Id. at 17]. Although Means does not list his end date, he claims that he quit his job at BLK as a driver “due to [a] hostile discriminatory work environment and unsafe business practices.” [Id. at 19].

Plaintiffs have asserted six claims: (1) negligence under Kentucky law, (2) fraud, (3) breach of contract, (4) racially discriminatory hiring practices, (5) hostile and discriminatory work environment, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. [Id. at 23-27]. Defendants have moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). [DE 14 at 147].

* * *

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “A complaint will be dismissed . . . if no law supports the claims made, if the facts alleged are insufficient to state a claim, or if the face of the complaint presents an insurmountable bar to relief.” Southfield Educ. Ass'n v. Southfield Bd. Of Educ., 570 Fed.Appx. 485, 487 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-64).

Outcome: Having thus considered the parties' filings and the applicable law, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Lindsey's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [DE 15] and Garrett's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [DE 16] are GRANTED as they relate to Count IV and V.

2. Defendants' motions to dismiss [DE 14; DE 15; DE 16] regarding Count I are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent Plaintiffs allege Defendants subjected them to hazards likely to cause death or serious injury;

3. Defendants' motions to dismiss [DE 14; DE 15; DE 16] regarding Count II are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent Crutcher and Stitegraves have alleged wage-related fraudulent misrepresentation claims;

18

4. Defendants' motions to dismiss [DE 14; DE 15; DE 16] as they relate to Count III are GRANTED;

5. BLK's Motion to Dismiss [DE 14] as it relates to Count IV is DENIED;

6. BLK's Motion to Dismiss [DE 14] as it relates to Count V is DENIED; and

7. Defendants' motions to dismiss [DE 14; DE 15; DE 16] as they relate to Count VI are GRANTED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: