Herman v. Ohio Univ.

Herman v. Ohio Univ.

Opinion

OPINION & ORDER

In this sexual harassment and discrimination case, Defendant Yusuf Kalyango has filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 35) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) as to each of Plaintiff Tess Herman's twelve claims against him. A response and reply have been filed, and for the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion in part and GRANTS the motion in part.

I. BACKGROUND

In the interest of brevity, the Court incorporates the background information [*2]  set forth in the Court's November 22, 2019 Opinion and Order (ECF No. 55) on Defendant Ohio University's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17).

Herman's First Amended Complaint asserts a total of eighteen counts. Twelve of those are against Kalyango. Those include federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for: (1) sexual harassment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) hostile environment sexual harassment; (4) retaliation; and (5) disparate treatment. (ECF No. 15.) Herman's state claims are based upon Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code and are for: (1) sexual harassment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) hostile environment; (4) retaliation; (5) gender discrimination; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) battery. Id. Kalyango denies all claims. (ECF No. 18.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Allgeyer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165072 at *9. In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all factual allegations as true and make reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2005)). Only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" is required. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). "[T]he statement need only give the defendant [*3]  fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). Although the plaintiff need not plead specific facts, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). A plaintiff must "plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678).

III. ANALYSIS

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.