Ackerson v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
3:17-cv-00011
W.D. Va.Nov 7, 2017Background
- In Dec 2012 the University of Virginia hired Betsy Ackerson on a one-year limited-term project manager appointment, which was repeatedly extended through Dec 24, 2017.
- In April 2016 Ackerson received a letter reassigning her and stating the position was limited-term concluding Dec 24, 2017.
- Ackerson filed an EEOC charge in June 2016 alleging sex and disability discrimination and retaliation; she received a right-to-sue notice Jan 12, 2017 and filed suit Feb 2017.
- In June 2017 the University sent a letter stating Ackerson’s limited-term appointment would end on Dec 24, 2017 and would not be renewed.
- Ackerson amended her complaint to assert new retaliation claims (Title VII, EPA, Rehabilitation Act) based on the June 2017 non-renewal notice.
- The University moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the amended-complaint allegations for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the new retaliation allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has SMJ over retaliation claims based on the June 2017 non-renewal letter | Ackerson: June 2017 letter is a discrete adverse act occurring after her EEOC charge, so exhaustion is not required under the Nealon exception | University: The April 2016 letter already notified her of a Dec 2017 termination; the June 2017 letter was a mere reminder, so retaliation based on nonrenewal should have been included in the EEOC charge | Court: Held SMJ exists. June 2017 letter was a new adverse act; Nealon exception applies so no additional EEOC charge was required |
| Whether April 2016 reassignment letter conclusively started limitations and foreclosed later claims | Ackerson: April 2016 did not conclusively foreclose renewal; prior practice showed extensions continued | University: April 2016 fixed the termination date (Dec 24, 2017) so later nonrenewal was a consequence of that earlier decision | Court: April 2016 left open possibility of renewal given past extensions; June 2017 letter constituted first definitive nonrenewal notice |
| Whether retaliation claims tied to June 2017 must be administratively exhausted | Ackerson: Retaliation for filing an EEOC charge can be raised first in federal court if the retaliatory act occurred after the charge (Nealon) | University: Claims arose from the same course of events and should have been exhausted earlier | Court: Applied Nealon; retaliation occurring after the EEOC filing is reasonably related to the charge and need not be separately exhausted |
| Whether portions of EPA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation allegations are governed by the same exhaustion rules | Ackerson: EPA and Rehabilitation Act may not require EEOC exhaustion; retaliation tied to June 2017 is separately actionable | University: Sought dismissal of similar allegations for failure to exhaust | Court: Noted EPA does not require EEOC exhaustion; Rehabilitation Act exhaustion is unsettled but Nealon analysis governs the Title VII retaliation pleading at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdictional facts when challenged)
- Velasco v. Government of Indonesia, 370 F.3d 392 (4th Cir.) (courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings on 12(b)(1) factual challenges)
- Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir.) (scope of EEOC charge defines the right to sue; related claims exception)
- Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584 (4th Cir.) (retaliation occurring after EEOC charge may be raised for the first time in federal court)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487 (2d Cir.) (nonrenewal of an employment contract can constitute an adverse employment action)
- County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (U.S.) (EPA claims do not require administrative exhaustion)
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S.) (statute of limitations often begins when employee receives notice of an adverse employment action)
- Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (U.S.) (timing rules for filing claims based on notice of adverse employment action)
- Smith v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 202 F.3d 234 (4th Cir.) (discussing Rehabilitation Act and Title VII exhaustion considerations)