Employment- Company dismisses discrimination and hostile work environment claims

Where a man sued his former employer for discrimination and a hostile work environment, but his complaint failed to plead facts making these claims plausible, they were dismissed.

Background

Anthony Robinson sued his former employer, Yes& Agency, alleging three counts: (1) discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (3) discrimination and a hostile work environment under the Virginia Human Rights Act, or VHRA and (3) breach of contract. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.

Hostile work environment

The court will analyze the Title VII hostile work environment claim and the VHRA hostile work environment claim together because Title VII and the VHRA use substantially identical language. To state a hostile work environment claim, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the alleged conduct he experienced was: (1) unwelcome; (2) based on a protected characteristic; (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and to create an abusive work environment and (4) imputable to his employer.

Plaintiff fails to allege that any conduct that he experienced created an environment that was so infected with racial animus that it altered his conditions of employment and created an abusive working environment. Instead plaintiff attempts to reframe his allegations of discrete acts of discrimination and attempts to combine them to create a race-based hostile work environment. But plaintiff’s allegations of different treatment are vague, conclusory and do not establish an abusive environment or clear the high bar set for hostile work environment claims.

Disparate treatment

To state a plausible claim for discrimination, plaintiff must allege: “(1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) disparate treatment compared to similarly-situated employees outside the protected class.” Plaintiff’s complaint here fails in two respects.

First, plaintiff alleges that the decision-maker with respect to his termination was Zihla Silinas, who only joined defendant in 2024. Thus, none of the prior conduct that plaintiff alleges to be discriminatory can be attributable to her (which all occurred under Jeb Brown). And plaintiff alleges no facts regarding
Silinas’ behavior from which one could infer racial animus.

Further undermining any allegation of racially discriminatory discharge are plaintiff’s allegations that he was terminated so that defendant would not have to share profits with him. The lack of factual allegations supporting the naked assertion of a race-based discharge fails to support a reasonable inference of race discrimination.

Second, to the extent plaintiff seeks to rely on similarly situated comparators, it is important to note that those comparators must be “similarly situated in all material respects.” Plaintiff alleges nothing about the individuals against whom he seeks to compare himself other than that they are Caucasian and they are executives – he does not even attempt to identify any such comparator.

Moreover, plaintiff’s arguments regarding similarly situated comparators relates back to his treatment with respect to travel and meetings and not the discharge upon which his discrimination claim was premised. Here, plaintiff is alleged to have breached a nonsolicitation provision in his employment agreement; thus, a similarly situated comparator might be one who was alleged to have violated a similar provision of an employment contract and was not terminated.

In short, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that his discharge was tainted by race discrimination, and the motion will be granted in this regard.

Breach of contract

The elements of a breach of contract claim are: “(1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation.” Defendant challenges whether plaintiff can establish damages where plaintiff breached the contract first. Plaintiff cannot. In alleging his hiring of a coworker at The Devoted
Agency, plaintiff has alleged a breach of contract that, under § 8(d), deprives him of a right to “any payments.”

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Robinson v. Yes& Agency, Case No. 1:25-cv-734, March 5, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-103. 18 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-103
Virginia Lawyers Weekly