Employment – Company prevails on former employee’s myriad claims

Where a woman failed to plausibly allege facts sufficient to support her claims for discrimination, retaliation or a hostile work environment, her former employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Background

Melissa P. Martin sued her former employer, Stateside Associates Inc. It has now filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining four causes of action in the second amended complaint.

Discrimination

Plaintiff premises her discrimination claim, in part, on her alleged “constructive discharge.” But this court has already determined that plaintiff did not sufficiently allege a constructive discharge claim. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to rely on other alleged adverse employment actions, those allegations fail to plausibly support that plaintiff was subjected to such an adverse action.

Further, plaintiff has chosen to proceed by relying on comparators to establish a plausible inference of discrimination. “To that end, plaintiff must prove that she and the comparator ‘dealt with the same supervisor, were subject to the same standards and engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.’”

Plaintiff’s factual allegations fail to show that plaintiff was “similarly-situated
in all respects” with her male coworkers. Even though plaintiff asserts that the male coworkers were not being similarly supervised as her, the second amended complaint is devoid of any specific allegation describing the context of such supervision, making it impossible for the court to infer that the male co-workers were similarly-situated to plaintiff in all material respects.

Indeed, other than Cook, these male co-workers are not even identified. Plaintiff also fails to specify whether the females who were the targets of the outbursts or were denied the promotions had similar responsibilities or skills as their male coworkers.

Most importantly, to the extent that plaintiff attempts to rely on purported gender-based animus by Holden and/or
Anderson to support an inference of discrimination, plaintiff fails to persuade. This court has previously held that “Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that plausibly demonstrate that she faced sex-based animus.” Plaintiff fails to address the analytical framework of this court’s prior memorandum opinion and order.

Thus plaintiff’s allegations fails to plausibly allege facts sufficient to either support a prima facie case of gender discrimination or support a reasonable inference of gender discrimination. Accordingly, the motion will be granted in this regard.

Retaliation

This court previously addressed plaintiff’s claims of retaliation in the context of a retaliatory constructive discharge. In so holding, the court recognized that plaintiff did “not allege that Holden was aware of her protected activities.” Absent such knowledge, plaintiff cannot rely on any action by Holden to support her retaliation claim.

Plaintiff now asserts that knowledge is imputed to him. Although certain conduct and knowledge may be imputed to defendant for purposes of liability, for purposes of establishing that any individual retaliated in response to a protected activity, there was must a reasonable inference that such individual actually knew of the protected activity. And to the extent that plaintiff’s retaliation claim is premised on poor treatment that she experienced both before and after her protected activities, those allegations cannot support a plausible retaliation claim.

With respect to plaintiff’s alleged demotion, the court disagrees with plaintiff that she experienced a material change in employment status. Plaintiff was not given a choice of resigning or accepting a transfer; instead she was given the option of continuing to stay in her current supervisory role or switch.

Plaintiff alleges that after her transfer, Anderson failed to supervise her and then criticized her work. But courts have long-recognized that alleging a failure to supervise effectively fail to establish a material adverse action.

Hostile work environment

Plaintiff alleges that Holden empowered Cook to make “demeaning remarks about female managers and staff” and that Cook continually derided plaintiff’s divorced status and her academic credentials. However, as the court previously determined, these alleged insults, while deplorable if true, are not unambiguously gender-based.

Plaintiff also alleges that Cook directed Holden’s staff to check plaintiff’s work for errors despite the lack of experience of the staff and that male coworkers were not supervised. However, courts have held that alleged nitpicking, micromanaging, unfavorable job assignments and pretextual write-ups are insufficient to create a hostile work environment. In addition, allegations regarding under-staffing fail to connect back to plaintiff’s sex. To the extent that plaintiff premises her hostile work environment claim on the alleged yelling by Holden, plaintiff’s allegations are entirely conclusory.

Defendant’s motion for judgment granted.

Martin v. Stateside Associates Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01076, March 5, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-104. 25 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-104
Virginia Lawyers Weekly