Hector v. Wolf, No. 1:2019cv01481 - Document 30 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 12/10/2020. (tran)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hector v. Wolf Doc. 30 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 257 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division SHANE HECTOR, Plaintiff, Civil No. l:19-.cv-1481 V. CHAD F. WOLF,Acting Secretary, U.S Dept. of Homeland Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Shane Hector, a Black and African American former Transportation Security Officer("TSO")at Dulles Airport, filed, by counsel, his First Amended Complaint("FAG") against Defendant Chad Wolf, the Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Transportation Security Administration("TSA"), alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964("Title VII"). Defendant now seeks to dismiss the entire FAC with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion. The motion has now been fully briefed and the parties waived oral argument. The matter is thus ripe for disposition. I. The following facts are derived from the allegations in the FAC, which are taken as true solely for the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). • Plaintiff, an Black and African American man, was hired as a TSO at Dulles Airport in 2012. • In July 2013, plaintiff discussed the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin under Florida's "stand your ground" law with a co-worker. Plaintiff asserted that the acquittal involved serious questions of race in America. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID# 258 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 259 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID# 260 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID# 261 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID# 262 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID# 263 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID# 264 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID# 265 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID# 266 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID# 267 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID# 268 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID# 269 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID# 270 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID# 271 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID# 272 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID# 273 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID# 274 Case 1:19-cv-01481-TSE-TCB Document 30 Filed 12/10/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID# 275
]]>
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.
