Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, No. 3:2019cv00512 - Document 80 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: AMENDED OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by Senior United States District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 10/4/2022. (sbea)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Doc. 80 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 1943 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 1944 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 1945 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 1946 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 1947 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 1948 showing that "(l) he experienced unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on his race; (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and (4) there is some basis for imposing liability on the employer." Perkins v. Int 'l Paper Co., 936 F.3d 196, 207-08 (4th Cir. 2019). VDACS argues that Agbati fails to allege facts to meet the "severe or pervasive" standard. Agbati' s complaint "must clear a high bar" to meet the severe or pervasive standard. EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306, 315 (4th Cir. 2008). Title VII prohibits "extreme" conduct that "must . . . amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment." Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 778 (1998). It does not create "a 'general civility code,"' nor does it impose liability for "the ordinary tribulations of the workplace." Id. (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (I 998)). To determine if conduct qualifies as severe or pervasive, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including (1) frequency; (2) severity; (3) whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating, or merely ·an offensive utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs work performance. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270-71 (2001). Here, Agbati alleges that his supervisor treated him in an "anti-social and discriminatory" manner, greeted him with a "sarcastic smile," closed her office door to avoid him, and excluded him from a clique of coworkers. (Dk. No. 3, at 9-11.) Agbati also asserts that a coworker slammed her door closed when he answered the phone. At most, Agbati' s allegations show that he experienced "rude treatment," "callous behavior," and "personality conflict[s]" during his time at VDACS, but those experiences fall short of a plausible hostile work environment claim. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d at 315. Because Agabti fails to plead that he experienced severe or pervasive harassment, the Court will dismiss Count Two with prejudice. 6 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 1949 3. Count Three: Constructive Discharge In Count Three, Agbati asserts that the alleged discrimination he suffered amounts to constructive discharge, forcing him to resign. To proceed on a constructive discharge theory of discrimination, a plaintiff must plead facts showing "(1) the deliberateness of [the defendant's] actions, motivated by [discriminatory] bias, and (2) the objective intolerability of the working conditions." Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., 150 F.3d 413,425 (4th Cir. 2014). Agbati's allegations do not meet the "objective intolerability" standard. Agbati proceeds on the same factual allegations to support his constructive discharge claim as his hostile work environment claim. Because his allegations do not support a hostile work environment claim,his constructive discharge claim also fails. See Nnadozie v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 130 F. App'x 151,162 (4th Cir. 2018) ("The 'intolerability' standard governing constructive discharge claims is more stringent than the 'severe [or] pervasive' standard for hostile work environment claims.").5 Agbati,therefore,cannot proceed on a constructive discharge theory. Accordingly,the Court will dismiss Count Three with prejudice. 4. Count Four: Retaliation In Count Four, Agbati alleges that VDACS retaliated against him after he filed his April, 2018 grievance. To state a retaliation claim,a plaintiff must plead facts showing "(l) engagement in a protected activity; (2) adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link between the protected 5 Indeed, "mere dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions are not so unpleasant as to compel a reasonable person to resign." Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank, F.S.B., 434 F.3d 249,262 (4th Cir. 2006). "Even yelling, public chastisements, and forced work under unsafe conditions cannot support [a constructive discharge] claim." Kenion v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., No. RDB-18-3344, 2019 WL 4393296, at *11 (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2019). Agbati's allegations of "workplace discomforts and inequitable treatment," id, do not qualify as "objectively intolerable" working conditions to support a constructive discharge claim. 7 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 1950 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 1951 5. Count Five: Pay Discrimination In Count Five, Agbati asserts a pay discrimination claim under Title VII. To state a pay discrimination claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must plead facts showing "that (1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was paid less than an employee outside the class; and (3) the higher paid employee was performing a substantially similar job." Kess v. Mun. Emps. Credit Union of Bait., Inc., 319 F.2d 637, 644 ( D. Md. 2004). Agbati generally asserts that white employees at V DACS earn more than nonwhite employees. When a plaintiff "base[s] [his] allegations 'completely upon a comparison to an employee from a non-protected class[,] ...the validity of [his claim] depends upon whether that comparator is indeed similarly situated."' Lawrence v. Global Linguist Sols LLC, No.1:13cv1207, 2013 WL 6729266, at *4 (E.D.Va. Dec.19, 2013) (quoting Haywoodv. Locke, 387 F. App'x 355, 359 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) ). A plaintiff must plead facts showing that the comparators "dealt with the same supervisor, [were] subject to the same standards[,] and ...engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it." Id. Beverage Control, No.2:18cv392, 2019 WL 123903, at *7 (E.D.Va.Jan.7, 2019). A "retaliatory constructive discharge claim, " however, "requires 'something more' than actionable retaliation." Shetty v. Hampton Univ., No.4:12cvl58, 2014 WL 280448, at (E.D.Va.Jan.24, 2014) (adopting report and recommendation). A plaintiff must plead facts showing "(1) the deliberateness of [the defendant's] actions, motivated by [discriminatory] bias, and (2) the objective intolerability of the working conditions." Freeman, 750 F.3d at 425. As the Court has explained, Agbati's allegations do not meet the "objective intolerability " standard. Moreover, any retaliatory constructive discharge claim would fail because Agbati cannot show a causal link between filing his grievance and his resignation one year later. Such "a lengthy time lapse ... negates any inference that a causal connection exists between the two." Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Agbati cannot state a "retaliatory constructive discharge " claim based on his resignation. 9 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 1952 Agbati does not point to any comparator to support his pay discrimination claim. The exhibits attached to Agbati's complaint appear to show his coworkers' salaries, but wage discrimination claims under Title VII require plaintiffs to plead facts showing that a comparator performed "substantially equal work." Spencer v. Va. State Univ., 919 F.3d 199, 207 (4th Cir. 2019). Indeed, plaintiffs must plead facts showing that comparators outside the protected class "dealt with the same supervisor, [were] subject to the same standards[,] and ... engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it." Lawrence, 2013 WL 6729266, at *4. Because Agbati fails to identify a comparator or otherwise plead that a comparator performed substantially equal work, he fails to state a plausible pay discrimination claim. Nonetheless, to give Agbati an opportunity to comply with the pleading standard, the Court will grant Agbati leave to file an amended complaint as to Count Five.8 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count Five without prejudice. B. Count Six: VHRA Claim9 In Count Six, Agbati asserts a discrimination claim under the VHRA. The VHRA prohibits employers with more than five but fewer than fifteen employees from discriminating against employees based on protected characteristics. See Va.Code§ 2.2-3903(8). The VHRA "provides 8 The Court cautions Agbati that a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, Agbati must identify a comparator and must plead sufficient facts to render his claim plausible that higher-paid white employees "were actually similarly situated." Coleman, 626 F.3d at 191. 9 V DACS moved to dismiss Agbati's VHRA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). But the grounds for dismissal concern whether Agbati states a claim under the VHRA. Accordingly, the Court will decide the motion as to Agbati's VHRA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(l). See Rose-Stanley v. Virginia, No.2:15cv7, 2015 WL 6756910, at *3 n.1 (W.D. Va.Nov. 5, 2015). 10 Case 3:19-cv-00512-JAG Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 1953
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
