Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where a Black female alleged she was treated differently than white mail recruits while training at the Prince William County Jail Basic Academy, but the complaint contained no facts showing that she and the “male and or white recruits” were similarly situated, reported to the same supervisors and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating circumstances that could explain the disparate treatment, her discrimination claims were dismissed.
Background
Roslyn Robinson filed a complaint alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and gender against her former employer, the Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center. Robinson’s complaint is based upon allegedly hostile and disparate conduct she experienced while training at the Prince William County Jail Basic Academy. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.
Hostile work environment
To raise a prima facie claim of hostile work environment, a plaintiff must allege: (1) there was unwelcomed harassment; (2) it was based on her protected class status; (3) there was sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to alter the conditions of her employment and to create an abusive work environment and (4) that is imputable to her employer. Plaintiff fails to satisfy the second element: none of the alleged unwelcome conduct is clearly attributable to her protected status of being either Black or female. The trainer’s or prison officials’ comments in the pat-down exercise and the firearms lab, while inappropriate, do not invoke race or gender at all.
Furthermore, plaintiff cannot assert a hostile work environment claim on her own behalf based on observing unwelcome conduct directed at others. The fact that four Black female recruits were all forced to resign or be terminated does not create the necessary link between the earlier unwelcome conduct and their status as members of a protected class. For these reasons, the hostile work environment claim must be dismissed.
Unlawful termination
“Absent direct evidence, the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII are: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) adverse employment action; and (4) different treatment from similarly situated employees outside the protected class.” Plaintiff’s allegations falter on the second and fourth elements of the prima facie case.
First, it is not clear even from plaintiff’s own recitation of the facts that she had satisfactory job performance before her termination. She concedes that she at least was “fishtail[ing]” during the driving course, which calls into question whether her performance was satisfactory and potentially provides legitimate grounds for termination. With respect to the fourth element, plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory rather than factual as to whether she was treated differently because of her protected class status.
Plaintiff explicitly states “[m]y performance during the academy was as good as the male and or white recruits. I was removed from the driving course while a male recruit with the same infraction was not removed.” Through these allegations, plaintiff attempts to establish a comparator theory of disparate treatment.
However, missing from the complaint is any of the evidence that plaintiff and the comparator “male and or white recruits” were in fact similarly situated, reported to the same supervisors and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating circumstances that could explain the disparate treatment. The amended complaint provides the conclusion but does not provide the factual support necessary to reach that conclusion. Accordingly, the unlawful termination claim under Title VII should be dismissed.
State claims
It is within the court’s discretion whether “to retain jurisdiction over state claims when federal claims have been extinguished.” The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law employment, negligence and unlawful detention claims. The court therefore dismisses all of plaintiff’s remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.
Robinson v. Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center, Case No. 1:22-cv-00744, Nov. 18, 2022. EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). VLW 022-3-531. 10 pp.
