United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
H. ENGLAND, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Latosha Denise Rowell (“Rowell”), proceeding
pro se, brings this action against her employer
Defendant Gestamp Alabama, LLC (“Gestamp”)
alleging she was subjected to a sex-based hostile work
environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. 6). Gestamp moves to dismiss
the amended complaint. (Doc. 10). Although she twice failed
to respond to the motion to dismiss, after the undersigned
ordered Rowell to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for want of prosecution (doc. 17), Rowell filed
both a response to the show cause order (docs. 18 &
and a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss (doc. 19).
Gestamp then filed a reply brief in support of its motion to
dismiss. (Doc. 21). Thus, the motion is ripe for review.
Having reviewed the pleadings and applicable law,
Gestamp's motion to dismiss (doc. 9) is
alleges she was subjected to a sex-based hostile work
environment and retaliation. (Doc. 6). On her October 20,
2017 Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Rowell checked
the box labeled “SEX” discrimination and provided
the following to describe her claim:
I am a female; I was hired as full-time employee by the above
named employer on August 28, 2017 as a Quality Tech. On or
around August, 2017, Mr. Michael Carter (Supervisor of
another section), hugged me. I told Mr. Carter that his
action of hugging me was not welcomed; he then hugged me once
more explaining that it meant nothing. I specifically let Mr.
Carter know that his actions were not welcomed and were
offensive. Mr. Carter would continually complement me on how
beautiful I am, to which I let him know that his advances
were not welcome neither were they appropriate since it
created a hostile work environment. MR. Carter has said to me
that females are “hard headed.” I reported Mr.
Carter offensive actions and behavior to Ms. Traci Wells
(Human Resources), on September 29, 2017. Since then Mr.
Carter has not spoken to me or approached me. Even though I
believe that Mr. Carter was told to stay away from me, I find
that his actions are to taunt me, because he comes by my
surroundings of where I work which are public work areas. I
have reported Mr. Carter smelling of alcohol since then,
because I passed near him when I was headed to the bathrooms.
I have been told that an Investigation is still ongoing
regarding the harassment and alcohol incidents, but I fear
that nothing will be done.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of
my sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended.
(Doc. 6-1 at 1). In her amended complaint, Rowell alleges the
I was grabbed from behind by associate Michael Carter in
which his body was pressed against mine and his arms across
my chest. Mr. Warren Landry did not handle the situation
correctly putting me in a hostile work environment with Mr.
Carter. Traci Wells, my HR Coordinator did not handle the
situation in a timely manner by ignoring my e-mails, phone
calls, and threatening my job. My hours have been changed
numerous of [sic] times as well as other associates being
given off-days instead of myself. Mr. Carter was never
disciplined for his actions even after they were made aware
of his alcoholic behavior and comments about me. My work
suffered and working around the rumors and harassment made my
daily living situations harder than normal. I feel as though
by terminating everyone's employment due to their lack of
judgment and behavior was a cover-up to avoid my legal case.
(Doc. 6 at 5-6).
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain ''a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the pleader is entitled to relief.'' A[T]he
pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.'' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Mere ''labels and
conclusions'' or A a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action'' are insufficient.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). ''[Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of
'further factual enhancement.'' Id.
(citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 557).
12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits dismissal when a complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
''To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.''
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). A complaint states a facially
plausible claim for relief ''when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.'' Id. (citation
omitted). The complaint must establish ''more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.'' Id.; see also Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (''Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.''). Ultimately, this inquiry is a
''context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.'' Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.