Employment: Woman alleges supervisor subjected her to hostile work environment

Where a woman alleged her supervisor forced the initiation of unwanted touching without her permission, and made lewd comments throughout their working relationship, she plausibly pleaded a hostile work environment claim.

Background

Kelly Baxter’s amended complaint asserts five counts: (1) a sexual harassment-based hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; (2) retaliation under Title VII; (3) a sexual harassment-based hostile work environment pursuant to the Virginia Human Rights Act, or VHRA; (4) retaliation under the VHRA and (5) discrimination on the basis of sex pursuant to the Equal Pay Act. HII Mission Technologies Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss.

VHRA

The VHRA “includes an extensive administrative procedure that must be exhausted before an employee may file a lawsuit under the VHRA.” Here, the amended complaint maintains that plaintiff received a right-to-sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, but does not contain a corollary allegation that she received a right-to-sue notice from the Fair Employment Practices Agency.

Critically, federal courts have interpreted the VHRA to require a right-to-sue notice that is separate from the EEOC notice. As such, this court finds that plaintiff has not provided sufficient allegations of compliance with the exhaustion requirements of the VHRA, and accordingly, this court will dismiss plaintiff’s VHRA claims without prejudice.

Hostile work environment

Plaintiff’s allegations related to her hostile work environment claim generally boil down to the summary that she was subject to sexually harassing conduct, beginning in April 2022 to June 2023, by Scott Leonard, one of her supervisors.

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to plausibly plead that the sexual harassment she faced meets the severe or pervasive threshold. Plaintiff identifies specific instances where Scott Leonard forced the initiation of unwanted touching without her permission, in addition to Leonard’s lewd comments made throughout their working relationship.

Retaliation

Defendant avers that plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her retaliation claim because plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on Jan. 2, 2024; however, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges supposedly retaliatory conduct occurring in January and February 2024 – after she received her right-to-sue notice.

Importantly, plaintiff has alleged that the retaliatory conduct occurring in January and February 2024 (after the issuance of her right-to-sue notice from the EEOC) was part of ongoing retaliatory actions being taken against her in her employment. Accordingly, the court will deny defendant’s motion to the extent that it argues that plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her retaliation claim pursuant to Title VII.

The court finds, however, that plaintiff falters in alleging a causal connection between her protected activities and the alleged adverse actions. given the significant temporal gap between plaintiff’s complaints to human resources and the alleged employment actions she faced in late May 2023. And plaintiff’s complaints to human resources in May/June 2023 are temporally distant from when she was placed on the performance improvement plan in November 2023. As such, plaintiff fails to state a viable claim for retaliation pursuant to Title VII.

Equal Pay Act

Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not sufficiently allege an Equal Pay Act, or EPA, claim. Plaintiff generically alleges that HII “pa[id] Plaintiff lower wages and lesser benefits than her male counterparts, including compensating her replacement, Melody Walker, at a significantly higher salary than Plaintiff.” At the most base level, plaintiff has not provided any information about specific male counterparts with similar employment responsibilities being paid more than her.

Nor has plaintiff sufficiently alleged that sex discrimination was a cause of the difference in pay between her and her male counterparts. As the Fourth Circuit has held, plaintiff “may not rely on broad generalizations at a high level of abstraction” when pleading an EPA claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s EPA claim fails on these grounds.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Baxter v. HII Mission Technologies Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-342, March 12, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 025-3-098. 17 pp.