Kesslyn Brade Stennis v. Bowie State University, 17-1345

Background

Plaintiff Kesslyn Brade Stennis, a Bowie State University professor, sued BSU alleging retaliation under Title VII, Title IX, and Maryland FEPA after her department chair investigated students’ discrimination complaints and later opposed her tenure application.
Stennis reported the alleged retaliation to BSU human resources and later filed an EEOC intake questionnaire months after her internal report; she ultimately received tenure.
District court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim; Stennis appealed.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and applied the McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation.
The court affirmed dismissal of Stennis’ Title VII and FEPA claims, and her constructive-discharge claim; it vacated and remanded only the Title IX retaliation claim insofar as it alleged the chair’s actions to deny tenure were materially adverse.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stennis engaged in protected "participation" under Title VII/FEPA	Stennis reported retaliation to HR for investigating students’ discrimination complaints, constituting participation	Employer: internal investigation not part of EEOC proceedings is not protected participation	Held: No — internal employer investigation unconnected to EEOC filing is not participation (complaint filed with EEOC only later)
Whether Stennis engaged in protected "opposition" under Title VII/FEPA	Stennis alleges she opposed discrimination by reporting and investigating student complaints	Employer: opposition must target discrimination covered by Title VII/FEPA; here alleged discrimination concerned students (Title IX) not protected by Title VII/FEPA	Held: No — oppositional conduct did not target employer sex discrimination under Title VII/FEPA; dismissal affirmed
Whether the chair’s conduct (altering duties, reducing development opportunities, recommending denial of tenure) was an adverse action for retaliation purposes	Stennis: changes harmed professional standing and tenure chances and thus were materially adverse	Employer: no actionable adverse action; reassignment/recommendation not necessarily materially adverse	Held: Yes as to Title IX retaliation — such actions could materially dissuade a reasonable professor from reporting discrimination; remanded for further proceedings
Whether Stennis pleaded constructive discharge from hostile work environment	Stennis: hostile environment and intimidation forced her to resign	Employer: allegations are conclusory and working conditions not objectively intolerable; she ultimately received tenure	Held: No — pleadings were conclusory and conditions not shown objectively intolerable; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving discrimination/retaliation)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse actions in retaliation claims)
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX prohibits retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc., 679 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal employer investigations not part of EEOC proceedings do not qualify for participation protection)
DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2015) (scope of oppositional conduct under Title VII)
Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 914 A.2d 735 (Md. 2007) (Maryland courts follow federal Title VII law in applying FEPA)