Motowski v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.
| Jeanie Motowski |
| Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. |
| 1:2018cv12062 |
| October 3, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Richard G Stearns |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed by Jeanie Motowski. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 12 Copy re 11 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim mailed to Jeanie Motowski on 11/2/2018. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 11 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered reserving ruling on #7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff Jeanie Motowski worked as a regional sales specialist for defendant Ferring Pharmaceuticals from August of 2015, until she was terminated on August 18, 2016. On October 14, 2016, Motowski filed a charge of discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), stating that she "believe[s] that [she] was discriminated against by Ferring on the basis of Retaliation... in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B 4(4) and Title VII." Dkt 8-1 at 4. After an investigation, on July 14, 2017, the MCAD dismissed Motowski's Complaint. Motowski brought this pro se litigation on June 22, 2018, in the Essex Superior Court. Motowski filed an Amended Complaint, and then served Ferring on September 14, 2018. Ferring then removed the case to the federal district court. Ferring moves for dismissal, arguing that Motowski's 316 paragraph, 42-page Amended Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a plausible claim for relief. The court agrees. Rule 8 requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Motowski's Amended Complaint is a novella of information, most of which has no bearing on her retaliation claim, the sole basis of the discrimination claim presented to the MCAD and the EEOC a prerequisite under the federal and state law for filing a discrimination claim in their courts. In order to make out a retaliation claim under Title VII or Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, Motowski must show that she engaged in conduct protected under these laws; that she suffered an adverse employment action; and that the adverse action is causally connected to her protected activity. See Fantini v. Salem State College, 557 F.3d 22, 32 (1st Cir. 2009) (Title VII retaliation). While a complaint to a human resources office can be protected activity it is not the equivalent of an EEOC or MCAD administrative charge for purposes of instituting litigation. Cf. Green v. Harvard Vanguard Med. Assocs., Inc., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 14 (2011) (plaintiff's complaint to human resources about alleged discriminatory conduct "is clearly protected activity."). In her Opposition, Motowski alleges, that Ferring retaliated against her after she filed a 23-page grievance on its human resources ALERTLINE on February 3, 2016 (and a 14-page supplement later in February) complaining of a hostile work environment. Motowski claims thereafter Ferring "set[] [her] up for failure" by, among other things, eliminating her customer base, setting unreasonable sales targets, eliminating her performance evaluations and coaching, and withholding software tools she needed to perform her job, all leading to her termination. Recognizing that Motowski's Opposition attempts to remedy the Rule 8 defects, the court will afford her with one final opportunity to plead an appropriate retaliation claim against Ferring. The proposed Second Amended Complaint must be filed no later than November 26, 2018. (Zierk, Marsha) |
| Filing 10 Opposition re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Jeanie Motowski. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 9 STATE COURT Record. (Shank, Jonathan) |
| Filing 8 MEMORANDUM in Support re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit MCAD charge, #2 Exhibit MCAD Dismissal)(Shank, Jonathan) |
| Filing 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc..(Shank, Jonathan) |
Filing 6
General Order 09-1, dated January 6, 2009 regarding the E-Government Act and Personal Identifiers entered. (Burgos, Sandra)
|
| Filing 5 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Correction in re ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment (dkt. no. 3). Pursuant to Local Rule 40.1 this is is randomly reassigned to Judge Richard G. Stearns. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock no longer assigned to case. (Danieli, Chris) |
| Filing 4 Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel by mail.(Burgos, Sandra) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Ferring Holding Inc., Corporate Parent Ferring B.V., Corporate Parent Ferring Holding SA for Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc... (Shank, Jonathan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. ( Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-7349096 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 category form)(Shank, Jonathan) (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/3/2018) (Burgos, Sandra). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Motowski v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jeanie Motowski | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Jonathan R. Shank |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
