Hill v. Foundation

LAURA HILL, Plaintiff, v. JAMESTOWN-YORKTOWN FOUNDATION, Defendant.

Civil No. 4:18cv137

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division

July 15, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Partial Motion to Dismiss by defendant Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation ("Defendant" or "Foundation"), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 7. After examining the briefs and the record, the Court determines that oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. R. 7(J). Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant's Request for a hearing.

For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and plaintiff Laura Hill ("Plaintiff") is PROVIDED leave to amend her complaint.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Factual Background¹

Defendant is a state agency tasked with operating two living history museums that focus on the early history and settlements in Jamestown and Yorktown, Virginia. Am. Compl., Prelim. Statement. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in March of 2007 as a museum program assistant in the On-Site Education Department. Id. ¶ 6. In October of 2011, Plaintiff started working as a part-time historical interpreter in the Interpretive Services Department. Id. Plaintiff was terminated from this position in December 2011 after requesting time off. Id. ¶ 7.

In April 2012, after meeting with her managers, Plaintiff was rehired as a historical interpreter and was assigned to the Powhatan Village interpretive site, where she was the only African American employee. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff complained to managers that her supervisor was under-scheduling her and failing to train her. Id. at 10. Beginning in 2013, Plaintiff reported to her interpretive site and human resource managers that she was being subjected to racial discrimination,disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment created by her supervisor. Id. at 10.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a racial discrimination and retaliation complaint with the EEOC after someone vandalized her employee mailbox (charge No. 437-2013-01205). Id. She later amended that complaint in 2014 and 2015 to include harassment and vandalism of her employee locker. Id. On January 1, 2015, Plaintiff was reassigned to another interpretive site with a new supervisor. Id.

During her time working for Defendant, Plaintiff applied for numerous positions but was either denied interviews or not selected for the position, whereas younger, less qualified people of different races than her were chosen. Id. at 11-21. Plaintiff also endured discipline and harassment that other employees of different ages and races did not endure, including the following: citations and suspensions for not showing up to work when she was there or had a legitimate reason not to be, id. ¶¶ 21, 24-25, 30-31, 42; disruptions to her training responsibilities, id. ¶¶ 22, 29, 32, 37, 39-41, 43, 49-50; and numerous other citations, reprimands, suspensions, and interferences, id. ¶¶ 21-57. During this time period, Plaintiff filed complaints of these employment acts with the Virginia Employment Commission, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and the VirginiaOccupational Safety and Health Administration. Id. ¶ 38, 44, 46, 53, 71, 83.

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff was reassigned from her position as a part-time historical interpreter to a position as a non-costumed interpretive tour guide, which required a reduced skill set and resulted in Plaintiff working fewer hours. Id. ¶ 58. Plaintiff requested greater responsibilities and more hours and sought to discuss her concerns about the reassignment, but she never received any replies from her managers. Id. ¶¶ 59-60. On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff's managers called Plaintiff into a meeting and terminated her employment, purportedly because she improperly started a tour early on October 14, 2018. Id. ¶ 62.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant on October 26, 2018, alleging five counts of employment discrimination: Count 1 - Discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"); Count 2 - Retaliation in violation of Title VII for having filed Virginia and Federal "EEO claims;" Count 3 - Hostile work environment based on race, religion, and retaliation; Count 4 - Discrimination based on religion; and Count 5 - Discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 6, 2018, allegingthe same statutory violations but adding more factual detail. Am. Compl., ECF No. 4.

On February 5, 2019, after receiving an extension of time to file an answer, Defendant filed the instant partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Mot., ECF No. 7; Def.'s Memo, ECF No. 8, along with an answer to the Amended Complaint, Answer, ECF No. 9. On February 13, 2018, Defendant filed a request for a hearing. Def.'s Req., ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed her response in opposition to the motion to dismiss on February 19, 2019, which was refiled on February 20, 2019 to correct a minor procedural filing error. Pl.'s First Resp., ECF No. 11; Pl.'s Second Resp., ECF No. 12. Defendant replied on February 25, 2019. Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 25. Having been fully briefed, these matters are now ripe for review.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

The Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review permits dismissal when a complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Though a complaint need not be detailed, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right torelief above the speculative level." Id. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint without resolving factual disputes, and a district court "'must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint' and 'draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.'" Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep't v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011)). Although the truth of the facts alleged is presumed, district courts are not bound by the "legal conclusions drawn from the facts" and "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must include 'more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.'" Johnson v. Am. Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693, 709 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).²

B. Rule 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may attack a complaint on its face, insofar as the complaint fails to allege facts upon which the court can base jurisdiction, or it may attack the truth of any underlying jurisdictional allegations contained in the complaint. Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 270(4th Cir. 2017); Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). In the former situation, known as a facial challenge, the court is required to accept all of the complaint's factual allegations as true, "and the plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural protection as he would receive under a 12(b)(6) consideration." Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219.

In the latter situation, involving a challenge to the truth of the jurisdictional allegations, also known as a factual challenge, "the district court may regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue and may consider evidence outside the pleadings." Velasco v. Gov't of Indonesia, 370 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219). In explaining how district courts should evaluate evidence presented in a factual challenge, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has indicated that it depends on whether the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits facts. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 196 (4th Cir. 2009). When jurisdictional facts are not intertwined with the merits, the trial court may weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes to determine its jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219. In such a case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence and may present "affidavit[s], depositions or live testimony" to meet its burden. Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219; accord United States exrel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 437-48 (4th Cir. 2009). When jurisdictional and merits facts are intertwined, *[i]t is the better view that . . . the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits." Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219; accord Kerns, 585 F.3d at 193, 196.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Statement

Defendant argues that the three-page preliminary statement of the case in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be dismissed or struck for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). According to Rule 10(b):

A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each

...