Woman’s retaliation claim doomed by timing

Where concerns about a woman’s compliance with her employer’s policies predated her filing the internal sex discrimination complaint, her retaliation claim was dismissed.

Background

Patricia Mitchell, proceeding pro se, sued Booz Allen Hamilton, asserting claims for: (1) sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and (2) Title VII retaliation. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.

Discrimination

Absent an allegation of direct evidence of discrimination, to state a prima facie claim of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) different treatment from similarly situated employees outside the protected class.”

The court agrees that plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that she had satisfactory job performance during the time she was employed with defendant. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint itself pleads that she was informed she failed to complete her timesheet correctly; a coworker reported that she was unresponsive during a virtual meeting and she was reported to human resources for plagiarism, time fraud, not completing her duties and not truthfully completing her pre-hire paperwork.

The court also agrees that plaintiff has failed to allege that similarly-situated employees were treated differently due to their gender. Even assuming her first comparator has the same supervisor, plaintiff fails to allege that he had comparable issues reported to human resources. Plaintiff’s other two alleged comparators had different job titles and presumably, different job descriptions (and may have had different education and other qualifications).

Hostile work environment

Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim must also be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Looking at all of the alleged conduct over the course of plaintiff’s seven months of employment, the court finds that it not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a hostile work environment claim.

The interactions plaintiff describes were not frequent or severe in nature. Although perhaps uncomfortable, statements made about plaintiff were not offensive as to her protected class. Such statements about her work performance may have interfered with her work, but not to an unreasonable extent.

Retaliation

Plaintiff fails to allege that those who terminated her knew that plaintiff had filed an internal sex discrimination complaint. In addition, concerns about plaintiff’s compliance with defendant’s policies, which began in or about mid-to-late September 2022, predated her filing the internal sex discrimination complaint. “Where timing is the only basis for a claim of retaliation, and gradual adverse job actions began well before the plaintiff had ever engaged in any protected activity, an inference of retaliation does not arise.”

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Mitchell v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Case No. 1:23-cv-653, March 7, 2024. EDVA at Alexandria (Giles). VLW 024-3-136. 11 pp.