Lorraine Carrethers v. John McHugh, 698 F. App'x 266

Lorraine Carrethers, a Black civilian IT specialist for the Army, alleged racial and sexual harassment by supervisors and experienced panic attacks and PTSD.
She filed informal and formal complaints (EEO/EEOC) alleging race-based hostile work environment and specific sexual-harassment incidents by supervisor Theresa McGuire.
An Army Regulation 15-6 investigation concluded Carrethers’ allegations were unsubstantiated and suggested she was abusing the system; the Army proposed removal and then discharged her in April 2014.
Carrethers appealed her removal to the MSPB; an administrative judge held a hearing and affirmed the removal.
She then brought a mixed-case action in district court asserting: (1) Title VII retaliation for opposing racial/sexual harassment, (2) WPA retaliation for protected disclosures, and (3) that the MSPB decision lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious.
The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and held Carrethers estopped from pursuing racial-based retaliation by an EEOC settlement; the Army conceded on appeal the settlement did not bar retaliation claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carrethers is estopped by the EEOC settlement from asserting racial retaliation	Settlement did not bar her mixed-case retaliation claims	Settlement covers EEOC claim; district court said it estopped racial retaliation	Appellee conceded settlement does not bar retaliation claims; court rejects estoppel basis and proceeds to merits of pleadings
Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded Title VII and WPA retaliation (sufficiency of allegations)	Alleged specific harassment incidents, formal EEOC complaint, reprimand, and Army’s statement that removal was for unsubstantiated allegations — enough to infer protected activity, agency awareness, adverse action, and causation	Argued pleadings lacked detail (how/where complaints made) and thus failed to state a claim	Complaint sufficiently pleaded plausible retaliation claims under Title VII and WPA to survive 12(b)(6); merits not decided
Whether the complaint plausibly challenged the MSPB decision as lacking substantial evidence/arbitrary and capricious	Count 3 incorporated prior factual allegations and claimed MSPB decision lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary/capricious	Argued Count 3 contained only legal conclusions and insufficient facts	Construing facts in plaintiff’s favor, Count 3 plausibly alleged the MSPB decision could be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard explained)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (Title VII complaints need not plead facts establishing prima facie case at pleading stage)
Keys v. Humana, 684 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012) (retaliation pleading standard and Title VII context)
Drake v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 543 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (elements for WPA retaliation claim)