133 F. Supp. 3d 828
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Plaintiff worked for Perdue Farms, Inc. starting in 2006 and accepted a lower-pay promotion in 2007 with the promise of overtime pay equal to his original salary.
- In 2013, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer and took six weeks off for treatment; upon return, his shift supervisor monitored him for problems.
- Supervisor Barnes directed fabrication of poor performance reports by Moen, who refused; Barnes moved Plaintiff’s office farther away and required him to walk through a refrigerated area.
- Plaintiff was suspended for failing to submit invoices, which managers had told him not to submit; a peer group later overturned the suspension; Plaintiff’s weekly hours were reduced from 50 to 40.
- In May 2013 Plaintiff resigned due to intolerable working conditions; EEOC charge followed on August 30, 2013, alleging disability and age discrimination; charge lists March–April 2013 as discrimination period.
- Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 1, 2015, asserting ADA/ADAA and ADEA claims; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for ADA claims | Plaintiff asserts intake questionnaire/charge should cover ADA claims | Charge scope limits litigation to EEOC charge contents | ADA constructive discharge and accommodation claims barred |
| Whether ADA claims are within the scope of the EEOC charge as reasonably related | Investigation could reveal additional ADA issues | No reasonable relation to the limited ADA claims in the charge | Constructive discharge and accommodations still not reasonably related; barred under 12(b)(1) |
| Whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for ADEA constructive discharge | Constructive discharge related to age discrimination | Constructive discharge not within the charge’s scope | ADEA constructive discharge barred under 12(b)(1) |
| Whether Plaintiff’s ADEA discipline/suspension claim is within the EEOC charge | Discipline/suspension discussed in charge with age discrimination | Discipline/suspension tied to disability, but box shows age discrimination | Discipline/suspension claim within charge; jurisdiction exists |
| Whether Plaintiff states a prima facie ADEA claim for discipline/suspension and reduced hours under McDonnell Douglas | Plaintiff alleged age-based disparate discipline and adverse actions | Plaintiff failed to show intent or comparators | Plaintiff plausibly pleads prima facie for discipline/suspension and reduced hours; 12(b)(6) denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (McDonnell Douglas test for prima facie case)
- O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1996) (application of McDonnell Douglas to ADEA)
- Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2013) (scope of EEOC charge; intake questionnaire not controlling)
- Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2005) (purpose of exhaustion; notice and conciliation)
- Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (scope of discrimination claims reasonably related to charge)