Ellston v. LeHew
5:24-cv-00045
| W.D. Va. | Mar 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Deise Almeida Ellston, proceeding pro se, alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by her employer, Via Satellite, Inc. and related LeHew family companies, after reporting workplace mistreatment and racism by her supervisor.
- She claimed multiple acts of mistreatment, including humiliation, overburdening with tasks, denial of benefits, and mocking of her English language skills, culminating in her termination after filing internal complaints.
- Ellston sought relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law (VWPL), and the Virginia Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act (VFAWPA), as well as monetary damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of factual allegations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, inapplicability of certain statutes, and the ADA's limitation to employer liability.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all claims, finding both legal and factual deficiencies, but relied only on the amended complaint, which omitted key facts from the original complaint.
- The district court considered both original and amended complaints due to Ellston’s pro se status, but still found insufficient factual allegations or legal grounds for relief and granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA claims against individuals/companies | Termination and mistreatment due to disabilities and retaliation | ADA does not allow claims against individuals; insufficient facts | ADA claims against individuals dismissed with prejudice; claims against entities dismissed without prejudice |
| Exhaustion of ADA administrative remedies | Good faith effort to file with EEOC should suffice | Failure to allege receipt of EEOC right-to-sue letter | ADA claims dismissed for failure to allege exhaustion |
| Coverage under state whistleblower statutes | Federal contractor status brings protections for Ellston | Statutes protect only government employees, not contractors | State claims dismissed—federal funding not relevant |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations | Allegations, including those from original complaint, state plausible claims | No specific acts linked to legal violations; amended complaint too vague | Complaints fail to state plausible claims even when considered together |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings, but must allege sufficient facts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausible claim standard for 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for sufficiency)
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing 12(b)(6) motions)
- United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113 (4th Cir. 1992) (necessity for de novo review on specified objections)