894 F. Supp. 2d 776
W.D. Va.2012Background
- Kerney was Home Health Director at Norton Community Hospital in Norton, Virginia.
- She alleges termination on December 14, 2010, the day she returned from medical leave.
- Her May 2010 notice indicated possible accommodation due to vision problems; she later took extended medical leave August–December 2010.
- Kerney filed an EEOC Charge in September 2011 asserting age and disability discrimination, but not retaliation.
- Defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), challenging subject-matter jurisdiction over retaliation and the sufficiency of the claim.
- The court dismissed Kerney’s retaliation claim for lack of exhaustion and, alternatively, for failure to state a plausible claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaliation claim was exhausted | Kerney contends retaliation is reasonably related to EEOC charge. | Retaliation not raised in EEOC charge; exhausted claim not shown. | Retaliation not exhausted; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court should consider the retaliation claim under Rule 12(b)(6) if jurisdiction existed | Amended Complaint aligns with EEOC charge; could state a retaliation claim. | EEOC charge does not allege retaliation or relate to return-from-leave conduct. | Even if subject-matter jurisdiction existed, retaliation claim fails under 12(b)(6). |
| Whether the need for accommodation upon return from leave was communicated to defendants | Allegations show a second accommodation request upon return. | Charge only alleged May 2010 accommodation and long medical leave; no on-return communication described. | No communication/knowledge of second accommodation; no causal link for retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sydnor v. Fairfax Cnty., Va., 681 F.3d 593 (4th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion scope controls subsequent claims; related but not broader than charge)
- Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009) (before suit, EEOC charge required)
- Miles v. Dell, Inc., 429 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2005) (retaliation claims require explicit exhaustion of retaliation in charges)
- Clark Cnty. School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity important for retaliation; but not sufficient here)
- Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion context for related claims; breadth of charge contents)