Employment – Former employee’s claims against ODU are narrowed

Where a former Old Dominion University research faculty member failed to plead facts making her hostile work environment and Equal Pay Act claims plausible, they were dismissed.

Background

Lida Haghnegahdar sued Old Dominion University, asserting claims for sex-based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wage discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1986, or EPA. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.

Exhaustion

Defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to include any allegations regarding a hostile work environment or retaliation in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, charge, and those claims are therefore procedurally barred. With respect to the plaintiff’s retaliation claim only, the court agrees.

There is no mention of retaliation—or information from which retaliation might be reasonably inferred—in the EEOC charge since it only alleges that the plaintiff was discharged “because of [] sex.” And the charge makes no mention of any protected conduct preceding the alleged discriminatory discharge.

The plaintiff concedes that retaliation was not alleged in the EEOC charge but argues that defendant was nevertheless placed on notice as a result of the plaintiff’s pre-filing complaints. But in determining what claims are properly exhausted, the court must look “only to the charge filed” with the EEOC and cannot “read into [the] charge[] allegations [it] do[es] not contain.”

However, the court notes that the conduct described in the charge is not only “reasonably related” to the allegations set forth in the complaint but is in nearly all respects the same. The same conduct that supports the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim is alleged to be sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create a hostile and abuse work environment. Therefore, the charge placed defendant on notice of the conduct upon which the plaintiff relies in asserting her hostile work environment claim.

And at least some of the alleged conduct is of a continuing nature—in particular, being subjected to a disproportionately heavy teaching load throughout a period of approximately two-and-a-half years. Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies as to the conduct supporting her hostile work environment claims.

Statute of limitations

Defendant argues that the plaintiff’s discrimination claims regarding her disproportionately heavy teaching load and more arduous hiring process should be dismissed as time barred. Specifically, defendant contends that the charge was filed more than 300 days after the date on which it “tasked” the plaintiff with teaching three courses and more than 300 days after the informal hiring of the plaintiff’s male counterparts.

The plaintiff appears to concede that these claims are time-barred insofar as they are alleged to be discrete acts of sex-based discrimination. However, the plaintiff argues that the claims are not time-barred to the extent that they support her hostile work environment claim pursuant to the “continuing violation” theory. That is correct.

Discrimination

The plaintiff’s allegation that the director “questioned her for traveling while she was working remotely on a grant” during the summer of 2024 does not satisfy the adverse employment action standard. The plaintiff does not allege any facts that indicate the terms or conditions of her employment were altered based on the director’s questioning.

However the non-reappointment claim survives. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class who suffered an adverse employment action (non-reappointment). She plausibly alleges that she was performing her job satisfactorily, and that an inference of discrimination results from her male replacement.

Hostile work environment

The alleged conduct (hiring her via a formal process, requiring her to manage a much heavier teaching load and scrutinizing her about remote work) does not entail any “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, [or] insult,” nor does the plaintiff allege that the conduct interfered with her ability to do her job. Moreover, from an objective perspective, the alleged conduct is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment, however objectionable the conditions may have been from the plaintiff’s perspective. This claim is dismissed.

EPA

The plaintiff merely recites the elements of her claim—apart from brief mention of an increased teaching load—without alleging any facts in support of those elements. She fails to identify any specific comparator, and beyond asserting that her male counterparts held the same research faculty position, she sets forth no facts comparing her skill, effort, responsibility levels and working conditions to that of her male counterparts. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to state a plausible wage discrimination claim under the EPA.

Punitive damages

Plaintiff concedes in her opposition to the motion to dismiss that because ODU is a government agency, she cannot recover punitive damages against it. Therefore, the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under Title VII will be stricken.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Haghnegahdar v. Old Dominion University, Case No. 2:25-cv-799, June 30, 2026. EDVA at Norfolk (Walker). VLW 026-3-282. 21 pp.

Full-Text Opinion