Kathleen Munive v. Fairfax County School Board
700 F. App'x 288
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kathleen Munive, pro se, sued alleging retaliation under Title VII and § 1983 after filing an EEOC charge; the district court dismissed her complaint.
- Munive does not contest dismissal of her § 1983 claims on appeal; only the Title VII retaliation claim is contested.
- Munive alleges her employer promised to remove a reprimand from her personnel file after she filed the EEOC charge but failed to do so.
- She further alleges the presence of the reprimand prevented her from receiving a promotion.
- The district court dismissed the Title VII claim as time-barred; the panel examined whether the failure to remove the reprimand and the lost promotion are discrete, actionable retaliatory acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Munive stated a Title VII retaliation claim | Failure to remove a reprimand after EEOC charge and resulting lost promotion is materially adverse and dissuasive | The reprimand (and related conduct) is not a discrete adverse action or is time-barred | Court: Yes — allegations suffice to plead retaliation because denial of promotion is materially adverse and could deter protected activity |
| Whether the failure to remove the reprimand is a discrete retaliatory act for statute of limitations purposes | The refusal to remove the reprimand after the EEOC charge is a separate, discrete act causing collateral consequences (lost promotion) | The reprimand itself is the actionable event and any refusal to undo it is not a new act | Court: The refusal to remove the reprimand that caused a lost promotion is a discrete act of retaliation and not barred on the face of the complaint |
| Whether the complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on statute-of-limitations grounds | Facts alleged plausibly show a timely, discrete retaliatory act; statute-of-limitations defense not apparent on face of complaint | District court found time bar justified dismissal | Court: Reversed as to Title VII claim — dismissal improper at pleading stage; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether § 1983 claims remain | Munive conceded no challenge to § 1983 dismissal | — | Court: Affirmed district court's dismissal of § 1983 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claim)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (each discrete act is separately actionable)
- Adams v. Anne Arundel Cty. Pub. Schs., 789 F.3d 422 (distinguishing reprimands from materially adverse actions absent link to employment change)
- Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321 (denial of promotion is adverse action under Title VII)
- Semenova v. Md. Transit Admin., 845 F.3d 564 (statute-of-limitations dismissal only when time bar apparent on complaint face)
- Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462 (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review; draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (retaliation pleading requirement that adverse action be shown)
- Tinsley v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 155 F.3d 435 (EEOC charge filing deadline framework)
- Martin v. Sw. Va. Gas Co., 135 F.3d 307 (refusal to undo prior discriminatory decision not a fresh act of discrimination)
- Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423 (procedural citation regarding appeals)
- Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170 (procedural citation regarding appeals)