185 F. Supp. 3d 807
E.D. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiff Terry Hinton, an openly gay male, is an administrative assistant at Virginia Union University (VUU) since 2006 and alleges he is paid less than comparable female administrative assistants in his department.
- Hinton engaged in protected activity: assisted in a 2008 Title VII religious-discrimination matter and filed an EEOC charge in 2008; he complained internally about pay in May 2013 and filed a second EEOC charge in September 2013.
- After Dr. Latrelle Green became his supervisor in August 2013, she gave verbal warnings (Aug. 6 and Aug. 29, 2013) and a written reprimand (Sept. 6, 2013); Green later allegedly told Hinton that VUU’s president instructed discipline because of Hinton’s sexual orientation.
- Green at some point refused to allow Hinton to take classes at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU); a later supervisor permitted the classes. Timing of the class denial is not precisely pled.
- Procedurally, Hinton sued asserting: (I) Title VII sex discrimination (sexual-orientation theory); (II) Title VII retaliation; (III) Title VII retaliatory harassment; and (IV) an Equal Pay Act claim. VUU moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for insufficient service under Rule 12(b)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII covers sexual-orientation discrimination (Count I) | Hinton contends Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination should cover sexual orientation and that a supervisor’s admission implicates direct evidence | VUU argues Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses sexual-orientation claims under Title VII; alternatively, the reprimands were not adverse employment actions | Court: Dismissed Count I — Title VII does not cover sexual-orientation discrimination under Fourth Circuit law; alternatively, reprimands alone are not adverse employment actions |
| Whether Green’s warnings/reprimand and denial of class-taking state a retaliation claim (Count II) | Hinton says he engaged in protected activity (2008, May 2013, Sept. 2013) and that Green retaliated via reprimands and denying classes | VUU argues reprimands are not materially adverse and class denial did not affect employment or was temporally disconnected | Court: Partially denied — reprimands are not actionable retaliation; denial of class-taking survives as retaliation insofar as alleged to be in response to 2008 and May 2013 protected activity but not the Sept. 2013 EEOC charge |
| Whether the facts plead retaliatory harassment (Count III) | Hinton characterizes the same conduct as retaliatory harassment (severe or pervasive supervisor harassment) | VUU argues conduct is limited to reprimands and temporary class denial, not severe or pervasive harassment | Court: Dismissed Count III in full — conduct alleged is not severe or pervasive enough to support retaliatory-harassment claim |
| Whether Hinton states an Equal Pay Act claim (Count IV) | Hinton alleges he is paid less than four female comparators in the same department with similar seniority, skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions | VUU contends plaintiff failed to identify appropriate comparators or plead equality of jobs in skill/effort/responsibility | Court: Denied dismissal — EPA claim survives plausibly alleging substantially equal jobs and pay disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 1996) (Title VII does not afford a cause of action for discrimination based on sexual orientation)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same-sex harassment actionable under Title VII where harassment is because of sex)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard requires a materially adverse action that would deter a reasonable worker)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to raise a plausible claim)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1974) (basis for Equal Pay Act analysis: equal work requirement)
- Adams v. Anne Arundel Cty. Pub. Sch., 789 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 2015) (written or oral reprimands without further consequences are not adverse employment actions)
- Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussing elements of retaliation/hostile-work-environment and severe or pervasive harassment)
- Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (retaliatory-harassment requires severe or pervasive supervisor harassment)