Employment – Wife’s employment claims against husband’s business are dismissed

Where a wife filed multiple claims against her husband’s company, alleging she was not paid a regular salary for 11 years of work, but none of her claims were plausible, it was not clear whether the company was subject to certain employment statutes, it was not clear if she was an employee and some of the claims appeared to be time barred, her suit was dismissed.

Background

Shakhnoza Kanev, who is proceeding pro se, filed a multi-count complaint against her husband’s company, Rebec Vineyards Corp. She alleges violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, the Equal Pay Act, or EPA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and common law fraud. The gist of her case is that she worked from “August 2013 through August 2024” for the winery but was “never paid a regular salary.”

Rather than paying the $405 filing fee, she sought to proceed in forma pauperis.

The court granted her motion and must now conduct an initial screening of her complaint. If the court determines her allegations of poverty are untrue or that her complaint fails to state a claim, the court must sua sponte dismiss the complaint.

Sex discrimination

Plaintiff only alleges that “Defendant failed to pay [her] equal wages, treated her less favorably than male employees, and exploited her labor.” This conclusory statement fails to identify factual circumstances that suggest plaintiff was discriminated against based on her sex. Moreover, plaintiff fails to identify when any instance of discrimination took place. And finally, even assuming plaintiff established an employment relationship with Rebec Vineyard,
her allegations do not show she was performing her job “satisfactorily.”

Disability discrimination/failure to accommodate

Plaintiff’s only allegation in support of her ADA claims is that “Defendant knew Plaintiff’s medical conditions but failed to provide accommodations, forced her into hazardous work, and used her disability to justify denying pay.” Again, this mere legal conclusion with no supporting facts cannot make out the elements of an ADA discrimination or failure to accommodate claim.

For example, plaintiff makes no effort to show what type of accommodation she requested. She also identifies nothing to show she was fulfilling her employer’s expectations or that she could perform the essential functions of her position with an accommodation. Moreover, she does not show that the adverse employment action—i.e., being paid less—arose because of her disability as opposed to her status as the owner’s wife. Therefore, based on the complaint as written, plaintiff has not stated a claim for disability discrimination.

Retaliation

Plaintiff only alleges that “[a]fter [she] requested wages, financial transparency, and accommodations, Defendant retaliated by filing false trespass charges, seeking a protective order, and blocking access to the workplace and financial reports.” Plaintiff does not allege any facts that would show a causal connection between the protected activity — i.e., reporting discrimination or requesting accommodations — and any adverse employment action.

In fact, plaintiff attaches exhibits to her complaint showing that her husband sought a protective order and filed trespassing charges after she entered his residence, rifled through his belongings and confronted him about seeing another woman. Therefore, plaintiff’s own complaint demonstrates that the alleged “retaliatory acts” stemmed from a marital dispute and had nothing to do with plaintiff’s work at Rebec Vineyards.

EPA

Plaintiff alleges that she “performed substantially equal work to male comparators but was denied equal compensation.” Again, this conclusory allegation does nothing to show that a male, who worked under similar conditions and performed a job with equal skill, effort and responsibility, was paid more than plaintiff. Without more factual support, plaintiff’s EPA claim also fails as a matter of law.

FLSA

To support her FLSA minimum wage and maximum hour claims, plaintiff only alleges that “Defendant failed to pay minimum wage, overtime, and lawfully required compensation,” and that she  worked “full-time” from “August 2013 to August 2024” and “was never paid a regular salary.” At the very least, plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate that she was engaged in interstate commerce and that none of the exemptions in 29 U.S.C. § 213 apply to her. Therefore, on these grounds alone, her FLSA claims are facially deficient.

Fraud

Plaintiff alleges “Defendant misled Plaintiff regarding wages, retirement, SSDI, and dependent benefits, intentionally depriving her and her child of earned income.” Plaintiff’s conclusory statement fails to plead the who, what, when, where and how with any particularity. Consequently, her fraud claim must be dismissed.

Remaining issues

Plaintiff’s failure to plead facts establishing Title VII’s and the ADA’s numerosity requirement or the FLSA’s enterprise or individual coverage requirement serves as an alternative basis for dismissing her
Title VII, ADA and FLSA claims. Yet another reason for dismissing her claims is that plaintiff never establishes she is an employee. It also appears that her Title VII and ADA charges were filed well beyond the 180-day deadline, and that her EPA, FLSA and fraud claims may be untimely.

Complaint dismissed.

Kanev v. Rebec Vineyards Corp., Case No. 6:25-cv-00074, March 12, 2026. WDVA at Lynchburg (Moon). VLW 026-3-108. 10 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-108
Virginia Lawyers Weekly