Employment – Former health system employee’s complaint is dismissed

Where the pro se plaintiff’s claims were time barred, did not plead a plausible constructive discharge and did not plead facts making her hostile work environment claim plausible, her suit was dismissed.

Background

Kathey Terrell—who briefly worked for UVA Health System as a customer service representative—filed this Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA, and Americans with Disability Act, or ADA, action against her former employer. Rather than paying the $405 filing fee, she moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court granted. Given that status, the court will conduct an initial screening of her complaint.

Administrative leave

Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA all require proof of an adverse employment action. Here, Terrell alleges she was placed on two days of administrative leave beginning on Sept. 18, 2024. Courts in the Fourth Circuit have held that placement on administrative leave with pay does not constitute an adverse employment action.

However, even if it did, Terrell did not file her EEOC charge until Oct. 17, 2025—

389 days after she was placed on administrative leave. Therefore, any discrimination claim based on this administrative leave is untimely.

Resignation

Terrell concedes she voluntarily resigned from her employment on May 22, 2025. Generally, a “personal choice” to “voluntarily resign does not constitute an adverse employment action, even if there are pending disciplinary matters.” To overcome this general rule, a plaintiff who resigned must show that she was constructively discharged.

This is a high standard, which requires a plaintiff to show that “she was discriminated against by her employer to the point where a reasonable person in her position would have felt compelled to resign.” “Dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.”

Here, Terrell’s allegations come nowhere close to alleging constructive discharge. Accordingly, Terrell’s Title VII, ADEA and ADA disparate treatment claims all fail because she has not adequately pleaded an adverse employment action.

Hostile work environment

Given the requirement to liberally construe Terrell’s complaint, the court will consider whether she has stated Title VII, ADEA or ADA hostile work environment claims. To succeed on a hostile-work-environment claim a plaintiff must show that there is: “(1) unwelcome conduct; (2) that is based on the plaintiff’s . . . [sex, age or disability]; (3) which is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiff’s conditions of employment and to create an abusive work environment; and (4) which is imputable to the employer.”

Terrell’s allegations—which include that her performance was criticized by her supervisor—are not even obviously discriminatory, much less the type of severe and abusive discrimination that constitutes a hostile work environment. Her allegations stand in sharp contrast to cases which the Fourth Circuit found to be sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. Therefore, to the extent Terrell even intended to raise hostile work environment claims, those too must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Complaint dismissed.

Terrell v. Liberty University, Case No. 3:26-cv-00036, April 24, 2026. WDVA at Charlottesville (Moon). VLW 026-3-187. 8 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-187
Virginia Lawyers Weekly