Employment: Former government employee’s suit is dismissed

Where a former federal employee asserted claims of discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, but she failed to plead facts making these claims plausible, her complaint was dismissed.

Background

Dara Grimes was employed as a Social Worker with the Department of Defense’s Defense Health Agency’s Directorate of Behavioral Health at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital from May 3, 2016, to May 31, 2022. Her first amended complaint includes allegations of race and color discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and disability discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.

Discrimination

Plaintiff complains of negative feedback, ignored complaints, reprimands, requests to cover shifts, denial of telework and lack of performance evaluations. These instances do not rise to the level of adverse employment actions. However, as conceded by defendant, the denial of plaintiff’s requests for FMLA leave could constitute adverse employment actions.

However, even assuming the denials of plaintiff’s FMLA leave constitute adverse employment actions, plaintiff has not adequately alleged any discriminatory animus in connection with the denials of FMLA leave. Although plaintiff’s complaint contains many conclusory allegations that plaintiff complained of racial discrimination, and that certain actions were motivated by her race, the court need not accept these conclusory allegations.

Plaintiff attempts to make allegations regarding comparator Caucasian employees who were treated more favorably; however, by virtue of plaintiff’s own allegations these employees are not comparable to her. She makes allegations regarding white employees who had a different supervisor, and an employee who held a position different than plaintiff’s because she was a team lead. Plaintiff fails to establish a plausible basis for believing that similarly situated white employees were treated better or that plaintiff’s race was the true basis for the denials of her FMLA leave.

Plaintiff’s factual allegations regarding disability discrimination amount to the facts that she has anxiety, that Dr. Mulvey perceived plaintiff as disabled and that unidentified non-disabled coworkers were provided FMLA leave. From these conclusory facts, plaintiff concludes she was “discriminated against and harassed . . . on the basis of her disability.” Such allegations are wholly conclusory and fail to state a claim of disability discrimination. Accordingly, this court dismisses plaintiff’s claims for race and disability discrimination.

Hostile work environment

Plaintiff alleges that a hostile work environment was created due to “(1) excessive micromanaging, (2) negative reviews, (3) yelling, (4) derogatory comments, (5) FMLA interference, (6) reprimands, (7) failure to hold performance standards discussion, (8) harassing emails, (9) excessive workload that exceeded duty hours, and (10) denial of her requests for support.”

Plaintiff does not describe or recount any comments made towards her, instead making conclusory and generic statements that derogatory comments occurred. Comments, even offensive ones, and criticisms of plaintiff’s work do not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment. Plaintiff’s allegations do not rise to the level of “extreme” conduct necessary to constitute severe or pervasive harassment. Accordingly, this court dismisses plaintiff’s claims for hostile work environment based on race and disability.

Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges numerous instances of her complaining about harassment and discrimination to various people, all culminating in a formal EEO complaint submitted on Oct. 22, 2021. Plaintiff largely fails to identify any specifics regarding these complaints, how they were communicated and to whom each complaint was made.

Moreover, the majority of conduct complained of by plaintiff is not materially adverse conduct sufficient to plausibly allege a retaliation claim. The only actions that arguably meet this standard are the denials of FMLA leave, therefore, any claim for retaliation would need to show a causal link between plaintiff’s protected activity and the denials of FMLA leave. However, plaintiff fails to establish that causal connection.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Grimes v. Department of Defense, Case No. 1:24-cv-1164, May 7, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). VLW 025-3-196. 13 pp.