141 F. Supp. 3d 579
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Plaintiff Ingleson worked for Burlington Medical Supplies (BMS) starting April 2011, later as an Order Entry Specialist.
- From April 2012, Ingleson alleges unwanted sexual advances and harassment by Swartz, BMS’s Owner and Chairman.
- In November 2012 and February 2013 Ingleson reported Swartz’s behavior to supervisors; allegations claim supervisors did not stop the harassment.
- Plaintiff was written up in November 2012 and May 2013 under circumstances she attributes to Swartz, culminating in termination on June 14, 2013.
- Ingleson filed an Amended Complaint alleging hostile environment, retaliation, negligent retention, and wrongful discharge; Defendants moved to dismiss three claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation for opposition to harassment | Ingleson alleges but-for retaliation for opposing Swartz's conduct. | Defendants contend the reasons for termination include non-protected grounds, breaking the causal link. | Denied; plaintiff plausibly pled but-for causation at pleadings stage. |
| Negligent retention of a dangerous employee | BMS knew or should have known Swartz was dangerous and retained him, causing harm. | Plaintiff failed to plead that her harm was due to Swartz’s retention of a seriously injurious nature. | Granted; claim dismissed for lack of serious physical harm. |
| Wrongful discharge under Virginia public policy | Termination violated public policy by opposing Swartz’s demands to commit criminal acts (fornication/adultery). | Forbids relying on fornication; claims on adultery and aiding/abetting adultery insufficient or not pleaded. | Denied for fornication theory; allowed alternative theory of aiding and abetting adultery to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation required for retaliation claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must contain more than conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (en banc addressing retaliation causation in the Fourth Circuit)
- Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (courts must accept factual allegations as true on motions to dismiss)