Employment: Company prevails on discrimination and retaliation claims

Where the record showed an employee was not satisfying the requirements of her position and did not improve her performance after being placed on a corrective action plan, the company prevailed on her discrimination and retaliation claims.

Background

Julie Goble sued LexisNexis Special Services Inc., or LNSSI, asserting claims for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Virginia Human Rights Act, or VHRA. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment.

Discrimination

To withstand LNSSI’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff must show that she was meeting LNSSI’s legitimate job expectations before she was discharged. Here, the undisputed summary judgment record clearly establishes that, after five months of working and an additional two months on the corrective action plan, or CAP, plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the “processing skills and analytical methodologies” required for a Pattern Analyst.

Plaintiff has not produced credible evidence of her satisfactory job performance; to the contrary, the undisputed material facts show that her job performance was not satisfactory. Indeed, plaintiff concedes that she “did not ‘make the leap.’” In sum, the summary judgment record makes unmistakably clear that plaintiff was not satisfying LNSSI’s legitimate expectations for the Pattern Analyst position.

Seeking to avoid this conclusion, plaintiff argues that she had improved on the CAP to a satisfactory level of performance. With respect to performance issues, there will always be a dispute between an employee and the decisionmaker who terminated that employee. As the Fourth Circuit has made clear, a plaintiff’s own belief regarding her performance does not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Further, plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she has produced no evidence that comparable Pattern Analysts were treated more favorably than she was. And even assuming plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination, she has failed to show that LNSSI’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination, namely her unsatisfactory job performance, was mere pretext.

Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining of sex discrimination when it . . . subjected her to a CAP.” Plaintiff, however, cannot make out a prima facie case that being subjected to the CAP was retaliation because plaintiff does not provide any evidence to show that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity before being placed on the CAP.

Next, plaintiff alleges that defendant retaliated against her by “falsely accusing her of committing a security violation.” The undisputed summary judgment record shows that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity when she emailed Reynolds and Kearny on Oct. 13, 2022, complaining of sex discrimination. In plaintiff’s email to Kearny and Reynolds, sent through an unsecure system, plaintiff referenced a particular data project by name. That same day, Kearny reported the email to the Facility Security Officer, or FSO, as a potential security violation. The FSO ultimately purged the email from the company systems.

Assuming, for argument’s sake, that plaintiff is able to make out a prima facie case of retaliation with respect to the potential security violation report, LNSSI has provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for reporting plaintiff’s email to the FSO, and plaintiff has provided no evidence that LNSSI’s articulated reason is pretextual. Plaintiff does not offer anything specific to undermine the sincerity of his belief that this potential security violation needed to be reported. Nor does plaintiff dispute that this was a reportable event.

Additionally, plaintiff alleges that LNSSI retaliated against her when it terminated her employment. Again, assuming that plaintiff is able to make out a prima facie case, LNSSI has provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for plaintiff’s termination, namely her poor performance, and plaintiff has provided no evidence that LNSSI’s articulated reason is pretextual.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Goble v. LexisNexis Special Services Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-1774, Aug. 15, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 025-3-334. 29 pp.