Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00506/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00506-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

JERRY WAYNE HUGHES and *

LAVERNE HUGHES, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * No. 4:14CV00506 SWW

*

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF *

ARKANSAS, INC; ET AL., *

*

*

Defendants. *

*

 

OPINION and ORDER

This is an employment discrimination case brought by Jerry Wayne Hughes, a white

male, against his employer, Goodwill Industries of Arkansas (“Goodwill”), and individual

employees of Goodwill: Cedric Horton (“Horton”), Andy Hollowell (“Hollowell”), Shirl Holmes

(“Holmes”), and Candi Wilson (“Wilson”). In addition to his Title VII discrimination claim, Mr.

Hughes asserts claims of defamation and outrage. His wife, Laverne Hughes, brings a claim for

loss of consortium. 

Now before the Court is a motion filed by Goodwill, Horton, Hollowell, and Holmes to

dismiss Mr. Hughes’s Title VII claim against Horton and Hollowell and his claim of outrage

against all the defendants. Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to the motion. The Court has

reviewed the motion and brief and finds the motion should be granted. 

Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails to

Case 4:14-cv-00506-SWW Document 25 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 4
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To meet the 12(b)(6) standard, a complaint must

sufficiently allege facts that will entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, threadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, are

insufficient. Id.

Title VII

As a matter of law, individual co-workers cannot be held personally liable under Title

VII. See Lenhardt v. Basic Inst. of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377, 381 (8th Cir.1995); Smith v. St.

Bernards Regional Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir.1994). Therefore, the Court finds Mr.

Hughes fails to state a claim for relief under Title VII against the individual defendants Horton

and Hollowell. 

Outrage

To prove a claim of outrage, Mr. Hughes must establish that: (1) the defendants intended

to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely

result from their conduct; (2) their conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible

bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) defendants’ actions

caused Hughes’s distress; and (4) Hughes’s emotional distress was so severe that no reasonable

person could be expected to endure it. Kiersey v. Jeffrey, 253 S.W.3d 438, 441 (Ark. 2007). 

“Arkansas courts take a ‘narrow view’ of the tort, and adopt an especially strict approach to

outrage claims arising from employment relationships.” Burkhart v. American Railcar Indus.,

Inc., 603 F.3d 472, 478 (8th Cir. 2010). 

Mr. Hughes complains that Horton, Holmes, and Wilson created a hostile work

environment by accusing him of being a racist and verbally assaulting him. He claims their

2

Case 4:14-cv-00506-SWW Document 25 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 4
actions, the other defendants’ failure to do anything about the situation despite his requests, and

his constructive discharge caused him severe anguish, distress, and anxiety.

In Cesena v. Gray, 316 S.W.3d 257 (Ark. App. 2009), the court held that plaintiff failed

to state a claim of outrage when he alleged that

‘for over a year Derrick Flowers [his supervisor] repeatedly and angrily

threatened Plaintiff that he was going to take Plaintiff out into the parking lot and

kick his ass.’ Second, Cesena alleged, ‘On occasion when Plaintiff requested

assistance from Defendant Gray [the manager] to stop Derrick Flowers from

subjecting him to threats of being taken out into the parking lot by Derrick

Flowers and having his ‘ass kicked,’ Defendant Gray shoved his finger into

Plaintiff's face and screamed, ‘Do you want to see how tough I can be?’’ He

believed that this ‘threat’ was significant because he was aware that Gray had

previously sustained a broken leg in a fight with an ABCBS employee. Cesena

claimed that Gray ‘informed Plaintiff that Derrick Flowers was an extension of

Defendant Gray's authority,’ and that ‘it was reasonably assumed by Plaintiff that

the threats of Derrick Flowers were the threats of Defendant Gray, which caused

him to have fear of imminent harm of being beat up by one or the other or both.’

Third, Cesena alleged that on February 24, 2004, Gray terminated him for

dishonesty. Fourth, Cesena asserted that Gray defamed him by declaring him

dishonest, incompetent, and ‘crazy,’ which he contended not only constituted

defamation, but conduct that qualified as outrage as well.

316 S.W.3d at 259-60.

There are numerous cases where plaintiffs have alleged conduct much more egregious

than what Hughes alleges here and the claims of outrage were dismissed. See Kelley v. GeorgiaPacific Corp., 300 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2002)(supervisor allegedly took employee’s teenaged

daughter to strip club and watched her dance topless, then wrote inaccurate e-mails regarding

employee’s work performance, excluded him from meetings, and verbally harassed him); Smith

v. American Greetings Corp., 804 S.W.2d 683 (Ark. 1991)(employee alleged he was wrongfully

terminated after supervisor hit him); Holloman v. Keadle, 931 S.W.2d 413 (Ark. 2006)(employee

alleged her employer repeatedly cursed and called her “slut,” “whore,” “white nigger,” and the

3

Case 4:14-cv-00506-SWW Document 25 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 4
“ignorance of Glenwood, Arkansas;” made derogatory remarks about women; and veiled threats

to do her physical harm). The Court finds the allegations fail to state a claim for outrage.

Motion to Amend Answer

Also before the Court is defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer to

which plaintiff made no timely response. The motion is granted. Defendants are directed to

file their amended answer within five [5] day of the date of entry of this Order.

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 14] is

granted. Plaintiff’s Title VII claim against Horton and Hollowell is dismissed and plaintiff’s

claim of outrage is dismissed. Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer [ECF

No. 23] is granted. 

DATED this 13th day of January, 2015.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 4:14-cv-00506-SWW Document 25 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 4