Goodman v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

1

DANIELLE GOODMAN, Plaintiff, v. IKEA U.S. RETAIL, LLC, Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-868 (LMB/IDD)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

October 23, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judge

Acting pro se, plaintiff Danielle Goodman (“plaintiff”) has filed a 12-count Complaint against her former employer IKEA U.S. Retail, LLC (“IKEA” or “defendant”) in which she alleges the following 12 claims against the defendant: race discrimination (Count One) and retaliation (Count Two) in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); race discrimination (Count Three) and retaliation (Count Four) in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1981; defamation (Count Five); breach of contract (Count Six); conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Count Seven); neglect to prevent in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Count Eight); violation of Virginia's Human Rights Act § 2.2-3900 (Count Nine); business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 (Count Ten); civil conspiracy in violation of Virginia common law (Count Eleven); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Twelve). [Dkt. No. 1] (“Compl.”) at 23-42. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief along with compensatory, punitive, and liquidated damages. Id.

Defendant has filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts One, Five, Six Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve of the Complaint with prejudice, and to dismiss Counts Three and Four to the extent they rely on untimely allegations. [Dkt. No. 11] (“Motion”). In opposition, plaintiff argues that the Complaint adequately alleges each cause of action and that Counts Three and Four were timely filed. Defendant has filed a reply brief and the parties have waived oral argument. For the reasons that follow, defendant's Motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, plaintiff, a Black woman, worked at defendant's Woodbridge, VA location from November 2015 through January 2022. [Dkt. No. 1] (“Compl.”) at ¶ 18. Although plaintiff held various positions during this time, the alleged misconduct occurred from mid-2017 through January 2022, while she served as the Site Admin Coordinator in the Risk and Compliance Department. Id. at ¶¶ 18,21, 26. Beginning in early 2017, plaintiff became a member of the Coworker Engagement Committee and was “vocal about her pride of her Black heritage and culture and support and furtherance of Black equality and issues at the store.” Id. ¶24.

In mid-2017, the defendant experienced a “major company reorganization called O4G, and as a result, the Risk and Compliance Department fell under a new Operations Manager, Michelle Chenard” (“Chenard”). Id. at ¶ 25. During this time, plaintiff was “knowledgeable, efficient, and productive, and she carried the brunt of the workload for the Site Admin Department.” Id. at ¶ 27. In her final performance review in October 2021, plaintiffs manager Ronda Knight (“Knight”) lauded plaintiffs efficiency. Id. at ¶ 29.

The Complaint alleges that “[p]rior to early 2017, [plaintiff] experienced positive employment actions. After mid-2017, [plaintiff] experienced negative employment actions and disparate treatment.” Id. at ¶ 27. After the reorganization, plaintiff “experienced inconsistent expectations and unequal treatment from management in contrast to the other non-Black Site Admin coworkers.” Id. at ¶ 29. Her wages were reduced by about $8 per hour, which she reported to the Human Resources (“HR”) business partner, who then informed her that this pay cap affected all departments equally. Id. at ¶ 31.

In 2018, plaintiff took parental leave following the birth of her child. Rick Singleton (“Singleton”), a Black coworker in the Risk and Compliance department, was the father of her child. Id. at ¶ 32. In the fall of 2019, after her return from maternity leave, plaintiff was given a “retaliatory corrective action” after she reported misconduct by Chenard. Id. at ¶ 33. Plaintiff complained about this retaliatory conduct, and, as a result, upper management rescinded the corrective action from plaintiffs personnel file. Id. at ¶33.

Once the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, employees at defendant's Woodbridge store were furloughed. Plaintiff and Singleton, who were the only Black Risk and Compliance workers, were recalled “after everyone else in the department” and were also the only coworkers in the department “to be put on deferment before they were able to return to work.” Id. at ¶ 34.

In March 2021, Chenard provided a PowerPoint training on guidelines she was introducing regarding relationships between managers and coworkers. Id. ¶ 37. Later in the spring of 2021, a white relative of Risk and Compliance Team Lead Heidi Becker was hired and became her direct report. Id. ¶ 38.

In the spring of 2021, plaintiff interviewed for a full-time HL3 Site Admin position (she had previously been an HL2). Id. at ¶ 43. Plaintiff was given this position and was supposed to receive full-time pay for 40-hour weeks like the other HL3 coworkers in the Risk and Compliance Department, but she received fewer hours. Id. at ¶ 44. After plaintiff made repeated requests to receive adequate hours, she finally received a 40 hours per week schedule. Id. at ¶ 45.

In August 2021, an HR manager negligently emailed a confidential HR spreadsheet which contained each employee's pay. Plaintiff reviewed the spreadsheet and discovered that she was being paid less than the non-Black employees in her department. Id. at ¶ 46. As a result, in September 2021, plaintiff filed an “inquiry” with the EEOC regarding the pay cap she was subjected to “following the general dissemination of her Black heritage in the Coworker Engagement [C]ommittee in early 2017.” Id. at ¶ 56.

On October 26,2021, plaintiff received a positive performance review from the Risk and Compliance manager, Knight. During this time, neither Knight nor Chenard made any comments to plaintiff about her breaking defendant's policy or guidelines regarding her relationship with Singleton, id. at ¶ 59; however, at some unidentified time(s), plaintiff was subjected to “constant micromanagement,” in contrast to the non-Black Site Admins. Id. at ¶110.

In November 2021, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging race discrimination based on the pay disparity she had discovered. Id. at ¶ 63. Defendant received notice of plaintiffs charge on November 26, 2021. Id. at ¶ 64. The EEOC dismissed plaintiffs charge in December 2021, allegedly without investigation. Id. at ¶ 68.

According to the Complaint, after the dismissal of her EEOC charge, plaintiff “began experiencing immediate and continuous retaliation from her direct manager, Ms. Knight, through upper management.” Id. at ¶ 69. For example, Knight “stopped answering any radio or phone calls made by [plaintiff].” Id. at ¶ 70. Also in December 2021, management scheduled a meeting with plaintiff in which they informed plaintiff that her relationship with Singleton was a “conflict of interest,” and that plaintiff had been “concealing” her relationship. Id. at ¶ 75. Plaintiff again met with management in January 2022 regarding a possible investigation into plaintiff's “conflict of interest.” During that meeting, management informed plaintiff that the investigation would take six months and that “termination was not on the table.” Id. at ¶ 80. Following both meetings, plaintiff never received any disciplinary actions, discussions, or write ups before the day of her termination. Id. at ¶ 82. Moreover, management “failed to provide an investigation as agreed.” Id. at ¶ 83.

On January 21, 2022, one month after the EEOC charge was dismissed, plaintiff was fired, allegedly “in retaliation for [plaintiff] engaging in protected activity by filing an EEOC charge against IKEA.” Id. at ¶ 88. According to the Complaint, “IKEA has admitted that the basis for [plaintiffs] termination was information from her EEOC race discrimination charge.” Id. at ¶ 89. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that “IKEA continued [its] retaliation against [plaintiff] by appealing the state's decision to give her unemployment benefits, and attempted to have her repay unemployment.” Id. at ¶ 95. Ultimately, plaintiff continued to receive her unemployment benefits until she was able to find a new employer. Id. ¶ 96.

Plaintiff filed a retaliation inquiry with the EEOC in January 2022 following her termination, and the charge was officially filed in May 2022. She received a right to sue letter from the EEOC on February 27,2024. Id. at ¶ 13.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and take the facts asserted in the complaint as true. Mylan Lab., Inc, v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint be dismissed when it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp, v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Bare legal conclusions ‘are not entitled to the assumption of truth' and are insufficient to state a claim.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Even though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, a pro se plaintiff's complaint must still state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Thomas v. The Salvation Army S. Territory, 841 F.3d 632, 637 (4th Cir. 2016).

B. Race Discrimination under ...