Hoskins v. Howard University, 839 F. Supp. 2d 268

Hoskins, an African-American female, was employed as Assistant Director for Training and Communications at Howard University’s Center from Sept 2009 to July 2010.
Starting Sept 2009, Webb, the Center's Director of Finance, harassed Hoskins sexually, made explicit remarks, and grabbed her arm in Oct 2009 causing physical pain.
In Feb 2010, Webb’s harassment escalated; he shouted about her salary and threatened her safety; Turner, Hoskins’s supervisor, blamed Hoskins and disclosed her complaints, undermining her safety.
Hoskins reported the conduct to Howard’s EEO Office on Feb 16, 2010; Howard transferred Webb but failed to adequately implement remedies and allowed contact between Webb and Hoskins.
After continued hostility, Hoskins took leave; she was terminated July 31, 2010 on purported grounds of not reporting to work while paid; EEOC letters issued June 30, 2011; Hoskins filed this suit Sept 23, 2011.
Howard and Barron Harvey moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court denied in part and granted in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Title VII claims	Claims timely filed within 90 days of EEOC letters.	Filed 98 days after letters; untimely.	Claims timely due to tolling from filing of complaint and IFP application, accepted Oct 6, 2011.
Harvey's individual Title VII liability	Harvey may be liable as an agent of Howard.	Harvey not a proper defendant; cannot be liable personally.	Harvey dismissed from Title VII claims; individual liability not available.
Howard hostile work environment (Counts I–II)	Harassment by Webb created a hostile environment; employer knew or should have known and failed to act.	Plaintiff failed to plead severe/pervasive harassment; no liability for employer.	Hostile environment claim plausible; denied Howard's dismissal.
Howard retaliation (Count III)	Adverse actions followed protected activity; causal link alleged.	Causation not adequately pleaded at this stage.	Retaliation claim adequately stated; denial of dismissal.
Howard common law torts (Count IV–VI) viability	Tort theories supported by harassment and managerial failures.	Without underlying tort predicates, claims fail; some claims lack specificity to Harvey.	Wrongful/constructive discharge: dismissed; IIED: survives; negligent hiring/supervision/retention: survives as predicated on IIED.

Davis v. Coastal International Sec., Inc., 275 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (defines hostile environment and term/condition standard)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile environment framework)
Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for harassment under Faragher framework)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same-sex harassment context for sex discrimination)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (objective severity standard for hostile environment)
Griffin v. Acacia Life Ins. Co., 925 A.2d 564 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (emotional distress may accompany discriminatory harassment)
Purcell v. Thomas, 928 A.2d 699 (D.C. App. 2007) (hostile environment can support intentional infliction of emotional distress)
Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (narrow public policy exception to at-will doctrine)
Curry v. District of Columbia, 195 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (employer liability for harassment by coworker under vicarious liability)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: plausibility, not mere possibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must be plausible and non-conclusory)
Washington v. White, 231 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2002) (90-day period tolled when complaint and IFP filed and court rules on application)