Behrens v. Tillerson, 264 F. Supp. 3d 273

Nina K. Behrens, a Senior Arabic Diplomatic Interpreter at the State Department, sued under Title VII alleging retaliation and a retaliatory hostile work environment after earlier discrimination complaints settled in April 2012.
After promotion in July 2012 to Senior Interpreter, Behrens alleges supervisors denied her the high-level interpreting assignments described as major duties of the position and instead assigned contractors and lower-level work.
Behrens filed an administrative complaint in December 2012 and sought multiple amendments (notably March 24, 2014 and August 2015) to add claims including one about a 2013 performance appraisal and a hostile work environment; the administrative record is ambiguous about whether the March 2014 amendment was accepted.
Defendant moved to dismiss in part under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) certain claims were not administratively exhausted and (2) the complaint failed to plead a materially adverse action necessary for a retaliation claim.
The court reviewed the pleadings and administrative filings and concluded that, drawing all reasonable inferences for Behrens, dismissal was not appropriate on exhaustion grounds and the complaint plausibly alleged both a materially adverse action (reduction/diminution of responsibilities) and a retaliatory hostile work environment.

Issue	Behrens' Argument	Tillerson/State's Argument	Held
Administrative exhaustion of (a) claims based on 2013 performance appraisal and (b) hostile work environment	Her March 2014 and later filings amended the administrative complaint to include these claims; the agency was put on sufficient notice	The June 2015 administrative order did not explicitly permit the March 2014 amendment, so those claims were not exhausted	Denied dismissal on exhaustion ground: the record is ambiguous and permits a reasonable inference the agency had notice; factual issue for discovery
Whether denial/redistribution of high‑level assignments amounts to a materially adverse action and supports a retaliatory hostile work environment claim	Denial of assignments central to her Senior Interpreter duties, threat of termination, restrictions on contacts with officials, negative reviews—constitute materially adverse action and severe/pervasive retaliation	Work-allocation decisions were legitimate and do not necessarily change terms/conditions; at most dissatisfaction with assignments	Denied dismissal: allegations plausibly show diminished responsibilities that could dissuade a reasonable worker and support a retaliatory hostile work environment; materiality and severity are triable issues

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (reduction in duties can be adverse employment action)
Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 (reassignment with significantly diminished responsibilities is adverse)
Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 (withdrawing supervisory duties can be adverse)
Jones v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 429 F.3d 276 (minor, routine assignment differences may not be materially adverse)
Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (recognition of retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims)