Employment: RN alleges she was terminated because of her age

Where a registered nurse alleged she was terminated and replaced with a substantially younger employee after she allegedly did not submit two patient documents on time, but that younger nurses often turned in the same documentation  late without repercussions and she had not received any non-pretextual negative feedback throughout her employment, her age discrimination claim survived the company’s motion to dismiss.

Background

Deborah Chamberlain-Loving’s two-count amended complaint asserts claims for: (1) wrongful termination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA, and (2) violation of Virginia’s anti-retaliation statute. Renal Treatment Centers-Mid Atlantic Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss.

Exhaustion

Defendant first avers that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her amended complaint adds new allegations that she suffered disparate treatment during her employment whereas plaintiff’s charge only alleges wrongful

discharge. Plaintiff explains that the new references to differing working conditions in her amended complaint are part of her wrongful termination claim, as they bolster her position that defendant had an age-related bias against her and that she was ultimately discharged because of her age.

Because the new details provided in plaintiff’s amended complaint are “reasonably related” to her claim that she was discharged because of her age, plaintiff has properly exhausted her administrative remedies for her wrongful discharge claim.

ADEA

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges she experienced age-related hostility at the DaVita facility, where  her co-workers often made disparaging comments associated with her age and the manager of the facility agreed with these comments and allowed them. Further, plaintiff alleged that the manager treated her less favorably than younger registered nurses, or RNs, who enjoyed better training, work schedules and leniency when finishing scheduled tasks.

Thereafter, defendant fired plaintiff, and replaced her with a substantially younger RN, for the stated reason that plaintiff did not submit two patient documents on time, even though: (1) younger RNs often turned in the same documentation  late without repercussions and (2) plaintiff had not received any non-pretextual negative feedback throughout her employment. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff, the court finds that plaintiff has plausibly alleged that defendant wrongfully discharged plaintiff because of her age.

Retaliation

Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to allege that she reported a violation of federal or state law in good faith. The court disagrees.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint states that plaintiff reported to her employer that “non-RN dialysis techs [were] regularly, improperly and illegally performing duties” outside of their scope of responsibilities. Although individual incidents are not mentioned, plaintiff alleges that the techs were unilaterally changing and deviating from prescribed patient care parameters without direct orders from physicians or RNs.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint thus plausibly alleges that plaintiff:

(1) subjectively believed that the technicians’ acts – committed by employees within the workplace – violated the law because she reported that the technicians were “illegally performing duties” and (2) reasonably believed that the technician’s actions – which fell outside of their statutory duties – violated Virginia law.

Defendant also contends that plaintiff’s retaliation claim should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to specify what she told her supervisor or HR representative when she reported the technicians’ unlawful conduct. However defendant does not cite to any binding or persuasive authority suggesting that plaintiff’s amended complaint must articulate the specific words she used when reporting the unlawful conduct or plaintiff was required to report the specific statute that she believed was being violated.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss denied.

Chamberlain-Loving v. Renal Treatment Centers-Mid Atlantic Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-24, June 9, 2025. EDVA at Norfolk (Davis). VLW 025-3-244. 17 pp.