Murphy also alleges that Ballard and the Board were aware that Spring, Wheeler, and Pruitt had illegally accessed Plaintiff’s email account during the administrative process but failed to disciplinethem.In her Petition, Murphy alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, based on violation of her First and Fourth Amendment rights, asserted against all Defendants;(2) violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2520, also known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), asserted againstSpring, Wheeler, Pruitt, and TPS; (3) violation of the Oklahoma Security of Communication Act(“OSCA”), asserted against Spring, Wheeler, Pruitt, and TPS; (4) invasion of privacy, asserted against Spring, Wheeler, Pruitt, and TPS; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”),asserted against all Defendants; and (6)
tort for termination in violation of public policy,asserted against TPS and the Board.
Claims are asserted against Ballard in his individual and officialcapacities. Claims are asserted against Spring, Wheeler, and Pruitt in their individual capacities.
II.Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. The inquiry is “whether the complaintcontains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider
, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
, 550U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must “‘nudge[ ] [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.’”
at 1177 (quoting
Part V.B, this tort is based upon the Oklahoma Supreme Court’sdecision in
Burk v. K-Mart Corporation
, 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989).3