Kinnett v. KeyW + Sotera Defense Solutions, No. 5:2018cv00110 - Document 38 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 8/26/19. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFI CE U, S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED U N ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT CO U RT W E STE RN D IST RICT O F VIR GIN IA H ARRISON BU RG D IVISIO N ALC 2s 2219 JULiA C. UDLEM CLEM RY: RO BE RT E .KIN N E TT, Plaintiffy CivilA ction N o.: 5:18-cv-110 U Y W + SO TEM SO LU TIO N S, D E FE N SE By: M ichaelF.U rbansldy ChiefUnited StatesbistrictJudge D efendants. M EM O M N D U M O PIN ION Tlaism attercom esbeforethe colzrton defendantK ey W + SoteraD efenseSolutions' rfsotera7')moéontoclismissundezRule12q$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedute.ECF No.2.PlainéffRobertE.liinnettrfloinnetf')hasalsoftledthreemodons,theissuesofwllich are intertwined with those ofdisnlissal.ECF N os.25,26,& 30.Pursuantto 28 U.S.C.j 6369$(1)7),thecourtrefeêredthiscasetoUnitedStatesMagistrateJudgeJoelC.Hoppefor areportandrecommendation.ECF No.8.ludgeHopperecommendedIonnett'smotionsbe deniedandSoteAa'smotionbegranted.ECFNo.35.IGnnettflledlnisobjectionstotheReport and Recom m endation on August5,2019.ECF N o.37. Forthe zeasonsstated below,the courtwillD EN Y IG nnett'sm otions,O VERRU LE Kinnett v. KeyW + Sotera Defense Solutions Doc. 38 linnett'sobjecdons,ADOPT tlaeReportandRecomm endationinitsentirety,and GRAN T Sotera'sm odon to disrniss. 1. Dockets.Justia.com Sotezaisaprivateem ployeropezating undercontzactwit.h theFBI.ECF N o.1-2,at2. Sotera hired K innettasa ftW eb Application D eveloper':in 2016.ld.Ivinnettwasassigned to w ork outofthe FBI'sRecordsM anagem entD ivision officein W inchester,Virginia,wherehe w as responsible for developing web-based business applicadons for tlae FBI's Business OperationsSupportUnited(f%OSU').Id.at2& 5. In Decembet 2016,Iunnett and John Haite,anothet Soteta developez,metwith variousBO SU staffto discussplansto createaBO SU H elpdesk applicadon.ECF N o.1-2,at 5. W hile som e concetn w as expressed zegarding whethet Tim othy W illem s, a BO SU superdsoz notpresentatthe m eeting,would agree to the applicadon,K innettw asinstructed to begin planning and developm ent.Jda Later that m onth,W illem s and liinnet't m et at - W illem s'insdgation to fTgetto know ''each other.Ldaat6.A slo nnettZlegesitatheComplaint, W illem sisffveryreligiousy''and m entioned during tllisinitialconversation thathehadattended a bluegrass concertata chtuch in Stanley,Virginia,where lfinnettlives.JdaW hen W illem s - asked Iû nnettwhathiswife did forw'ork, Iiinnettfdresponded thathishusband wascurrently developing a kiln to heat treat ftrewood.': J. i Kv illem s was unable to continue the convetsation,'?and IG nnettT'continued talldng aboutlnishusband'swork untilM r.W illem s wasabletotegainhiscomposure.''Id.Theteaftet,WillemsffwouldperiodicallyaskPlaindfo TSo you don'tknow the church in Stanley with the bluegrass concert?'alwayswith a creepy sm ileand alittlechuckle.'?Id.W illem s'sffrepeated''frout-of-the-blue''questionsm adeIfinnett ffvery uncom fortablein llisw ork environm ent.''Id. Iiinnettwas asked to give a ptogress dem onsttation to W illem s on the new BO SU H elpdesk application in M arch 2017. ECF N o. 1-2, at 7. Elizabeth Louch, K innett's 2 supervisor,congram lated him on thepresentaéon;W illem sm ade no com m ent.ECF N o.1-2, at5& 7.Thenextday,LouchandDenaBarnes,theBOSU pzojectmanagez,toldIonnettthat theapplicadon wasbeing abandoned,and thatheshould êevivepreviousversions.J. Z at7. IG nnettalso m etprivately with Louch,who itlform ed him that he was being placed on a Tfperform ance Im provem entPlan''and thathe wottld be worldng closely with Barneson a ffvet'yaggzessiveschedule''towlzich Louch had agteed.Ldaat7. In M atch 2017,Barnesins% cted lo nnettnotto speak orw ork with H aire,Sotera's other developer.ECF N o.1-2,at7-8.Io nnettinfot-m ed Louch aboutBarnes's instruction, and the two later m etwith Barnes.J-daIu nnetttold Barnes that he thoughtherinstruction violatedfederalregulationsthatpernaitthegovernmenttoassignprojectstoconttactors,but prohibitthegovernmentfrom directingconttactorsastothemeansofcompledngtheproject. LdxBarnesbecameangryand toldIinnett,<<Ican dobothl''Id.Louch latermetprivatelywith som e of the BO SU staffm em bers,and itwas decided thatliinnettwould be pernlitted to workwith Haireonalimited basis,butthatheshouldnotinterferewith Haire'swork.J-I. L Ifinnettwasultim ately able to resolve allissueswith the older software on wllich he w asworking,w1:1: the exception ofone issue thathe Tfwas unable to resolve due to lack of açcess.''ECF N o.1-2,at8.H e reported this issue to Barnes and received authorization to m akechangesbutwaslatersentan em ailaccusing him ofm aking unauthorized m odificadons. JA W hiletllisemailwassentbyBOSU projectownerMikeDillon,Iunnettbelievestheemail ff was dictated by M z.W illemsin an attemptto discreclit ' q and create a hostile wozk envitonm ent.''I. dz.O n the following day,Louch advised Iu nnettnotto tellco-workersthat W illem s clid notlike him .1. dmNotlong after,Louch ternlinated linnett'semployment.. J.I. L at . 3 According to Ifinnett,she did so ffper M r.W illem s'request.''J-I. L AftezIfinnettwas term inated, W illem s presented Louch with the resum e of a m em ber of his chutch for consideradon to flllIfinnett'sposiéon.Id.at9. In O ctober 2017, Ifinnett flled a charge with the O ffice of Federal Contractor CompliancePrograms(CTOFCCP')allegingthatSoterahad discriminated againsthim based on sexualorientadon and religion.ECF N o.1-2,at3.The OFCCP found thatlW nnetthad notm ade any allegationsofdiscrim inadon to Soterabefore term inadon and thatIfinnettwas ftred because three FBlem ployees had com plained abouthisperfotm ance.ECF N o.1-3,at 2-3.The O FCCP thusconcluded thatthere wasn'tenough evidence to 5nd thatSotera had ffviolated its obligations under the nondiscrim ination and affirm ative action provisions of XxecutiveOrderq11246,':ii at3,andissued IonnettaTfN oticeoflhight-To-sueunderTitle loftheADA orTitleV1loftheCivilm ghtsActof1964,7:ida IG nnettflled suitin August2018 and asserted fourclnim sunderTitleVIIoftheCivil mghtsActof1964,42U.S.C.j2000e:(1)disparateimpactreligiousdiscrimination;(2)hostile workenvironmentreligiousdiscrimination;(3)disparatetreatmentsex-baseddiscrimination; and (4)retaliadon.lECF No.35,at5-69ECF No.1-2,at9-14.Soteramoved to dismissthe Com plaint on O ctober 23,2018.ECF N o.2.Following this m otion,lG nnett filed two 1On April30,2019,thequeséon ofwhetherIfinnetthad exhausted hisadm inistradve rem edieswasaddressed before JudgeHoppe.ECFNo.22.OnJtme3,2019,theUrlitedStatesSupremeCourtissueditsdecisioninFortBendCountp Texasv.D avis,in which itheld thatff T itleVll'scharge-filing zequirem ent''isa m andatory cbim Tfprocessing rule..., notajM sdicdonalprescripdondelineating''thefederalcourts'adjudicatoryauthorityoveraTitleW 1claim.139S.Ct. 1843,1851.Thus,acotutisnotoblkatedtoraisetheissueonitsown,seeArbau hv.Y&H Co .,546U.S.500,514 (2006),andsuchanobjecéonmaybeforfeitedfrifthepartyassertingtherulewaitstoolongtoraisethepoinq'''Davis, 139S.Ct.at1849(quoe gEberhartv.UnitedStates,546U.S.12,15(2005)).SoteradidnotraisetheissueinitsRule 12$)modon,andithasnotchallengedKinnett'sposidonthathesadshedTitleW l'sexhausdonrequirementby61inga clqim withtheOFCCP.Accordingly,SoteraforfeiteditsrighttoobjecttoKinnett'sTitleW 1claimsonthosegrounds. Assuch,the courtwillnotaddressany argum entsregazding adm inistzadveexhausdon. 4 supplementalmotbns- amotion forarulingon hisjointemploymentstams,ECF No.26, and two m otionsregarding am ending theCom plznt,ECF N os.25 & 30. II. Rule72$)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedlztepernlitsapartytoTfserveandflle specifk,writtenobjections''toamagisttatejudge'spzoposedfindingsandzecommendations within foutteen daysofbeingsetvedwith acopyoftherepott.Seealso 28U.S.C.j 636q$(1).TheFoutthCircuithasheldthatanobjectingpartymustdosoffwithsuffcient specificitysoasreasonablyto alertthedistrictcourtofthetrueground fortheobjecdon.'' UnitedStatesv.Nlid etle,478F.3d 616,622 (4th Cir.2007),certdenied,127S.Ct.3032 (2007). To conclude otherwise would defeat the putpose of tequiting objecdons.W ewould bepetmitting aparty to appealany issue thatwasbefozethemagistratejudge,regazdlessoftlaenattzzeand scopeofobjectionsmadeto themagistratejudge'sreport.Either the disttictcourtwould then have to review every issue in the magisttatejudge'sptoposed findingsand tecommendationsot colzrts of appeals would be required to zeview issues that the disttictcourtneverconsidered.In eithercase,judicialresources w ould be wasted and the districtcourt's effectiveness based on helpftom magisttatejudgeswouldbeundetmined. J. dz.Thedistrictcourtmustdeternline. d. qnovoanyportion ofthemagistratejudge'sreport and recommendation towhich aproperobjection hasbeen made.ffT' hedistrictcourtmay accept,reject,ormodifytherecommended disposiéon;receiveftzrtherevidence;orteturn themattertothemagistratejudgewithinstructions.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72q$(3);accord28 U.S.C.j6364$(1).TfGeneralobjectionsthatmerelyreiterateargumentspresentedtothe m agistratejudgelackthespecificityrequired underRule72,andhavethesameeffectasa failureto object,orasawaiverofsuchobjection.''Moon v.BNVX Techs.,lnc.,742F.Supp. 5 2d827,829(W .D.Va.2010)(citingVeneyv.Astnze,539F.Supp.2d841,845(W .D.Va. 2008:,aff'd,498F.App'x 268 (4th Cir.2012)9seealsoThomasv.Arn,474 U.S.140,154 (1985(3))rfrllhestatutedoesnotrequirethejudgetoreview anissueX novo ifno objecdonsareftled.7l. Furthet,objectionsthatonlyrepeatazgamentstaisedbefozethemagisttatejudgeare consideted genetalobjecéonsto theentitetyofthetepottand tecommendaéon.SeeVene , 539 F.Supp.2d at845.A sthe courtnoted in V qqc : - - Allowing alitigantto obtnin d. tnovoreview ofherentirecaseby . merelyreformattingan earlierbriefasan objection ffmakgesjthe irliéalreference to the m agistrate useless.The ftm céons of the disttictcourtareeffecdvelyduplicated asb0th them agisttateand thedistrictcouttperform identicaltasks.Thisduplication oftim e and effortwastesjudicialresourcesratherthan saving them,and nm sconttary to the pum osesofthe M agistratesA ct.''H owatd (v.Sec' ofHealth & Hllman Servs.q,932 F.2d (5052,509 g(6th Cir.1991)). 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A partywho reiterateshispreviouslyraised argum entswillnotbe given Tftl' lesecondbiteattheapple gqheseeks.''Id.Instead,there-filed briefw. i llbetreated asageneralobjection,which hasthesameeffectasafailuretoobject.ld. II. Judge Hoppe'sReportand Recommendadon,ECF No.35,providesrecommended tnllingsforthreependingmotions:(1)Sotera'sM otiontoDisrniss;(2)lonnett'sMoéonfora RulingonlointEmployerStatus,ECF No.26;and (3)Ifinnett'sM otionsforLeavetoFilean Amended Complaint,ECF No.25& 30.JudgeHoppefound thatIGnnetthad failedto state a clmim fotwhich teliefcan be granted in thismatter,thatilisallegadon thathewasjointly em ployed by Sotera and theFBIffwould notsalvage the deficienciesin lAisoriginalpleadingy'' 6 and thatlzis proposed am endm ents to the Com plaintwould be futile.ECF N o.35,at21 & 23.Accordingly,JudgeHopperecommended thatSotera'smoéon to disnaissbegranted and thatIonnett'sremainingmodonsbedenied.Ionnettftledhisobjectionstothesefm 'dingson August5,2019.ECF N o.37. ThecouztwillftzstaddzessSoteza'sm odon to disrniss.ECF N o.2.A m otion to dism iss underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure129$(1)challenges court's sub' )ect m atter juriscliction.Absentsubjectmatterjurisdiction,acouttmustdismisstheacdon.Evansv.B.F. Perldns Co. a Div.ofStandex lnt'lCo .,166 F.3d 642,653 (4th Cit.1999).W hether a plnintiff has standing to bring a cause of acéon Tfis generally associated with Civil ProcedureRule129$(1)pettaining to subjectmattetjurisdiction.''CGM,LLC v.Bellsouth Telecomms.,lnc.,664 F.3d 46,52 (4th Cir.2011).ffThatisbecauseTArticle1IIgivesfederal courtsjudsdicéon onlyovercasesand controversiesy'and standingis<anintegralcomponent ofthecaseorconttoversyrequirement'''Id.(quo% gMillerv.Btown,462F.3d312,316(4t11 Cir.2006)).W hen a defendant raises substanéve challenges to a cotut's jutisdicdon underRule124$(1),thecourtneednotassumethetruf. hofacomplaint'sallegationsandmay considerfactsoutside the complaintto detet-mine ifitcan ptoperly exezcise subjectmatter jutisdiction.Kernsv.Urlited States,585 F.3d 187,192 (4th Cir.2009).Atalltimes,ffgtjhe plaindffhasthebutden ofptovingthatsubjectmattetjutisdicdon exists.''Evans,166F.3d at 647. Meanwhile,Rule12q$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedtueperrnitsapartyto m ove fordisrnissalofa com plaintforfailure to state acllim upon wlaich reliefcan be granted.TosurviveamodontodisnnissunderRule12q$(6),theplaindffmustplead suffkientfactsTfto raise arightto reliefabove the speculaéve level''and ffstate aclnim to reliefthatisplausibleonitsface.''BellAtl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,555,570(2007). A plaintiffestablishesfffacialplausibilitf'bypleadingfffacttzalcontentthatallowsthecoutt to dtaw thereasonableinference thatthe defendantisliable forthernisconductalleged.'' Ashczoftv.I bal,556U.S.662,678(2009).lnrulingona129$(6)motion,thecourtmust acceptallwell-pleaded allegationsin thecom plaintastt'ueand dtaw allteasonable factual inferencesin thelightm ostfavorable to theplainéff.Ibarrav.United States,120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir.1997).However,f'gtjhreadbaterecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofacdon, supportedbymereconclusorystatements,do notsuffice.''Lqbg-l,556U.S.at6789seeW ag MoreDo s LLC v.Cozart,680F.3d359,365 (4th Cir.2012)(holdingthecourtTtneed not acceptlegalconclusionscouched asfactsorunwarranted inferences,unreasonable conclusions,orarguments'')(internalquotaéon marksomitted). A. IG nnett asserts two cbim s religious disctim inadon. G enerally, to state a disctimination cbim underTitleVII,aplaintiffmustshow <f(1)m embership in aprotected class;(2) satisfactory job perfo- ance;(3)adverseemploymentaction;and (4)diffetent treatm entfrom sim ilarly situated em ployees outside the protected class.''Colem an v.M d. Court of A eals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cit. 2010).W hile lonnett has not alleged m em berslzip in any particular protected religiousclass,tbisdisttictapplies a m odified testin cases in which a plnintiffalleges discrim inadon because he did not share his em ployer's or superdsot'steligiousbeliefs.Scottv.M ontgom ery Cty.Sch.Bd.,963 F.Supp.2d 544,553- 8 54 (W.D.Va.2013)(collecdng cases).ltwasthrough thislensthatJudgeHoppeexannined Iiinnett'sclnim s;the couttwilldo likewise. Judge Hoppe, after exqmining all allegations in the Complaint, recommended dismissing ln0t.h CountOne and CountTwo because IG nnetthasnotplausibly alleged hew as discriminatedagainstffbecauseofadiscHminatorymotivebasedupon ghislfailutetoholdoz follow hgisqemployer'sreligiousbeliefs.''Scott,963F.Supp.2d at553-56.Iiinnettallegedin theCom plaintthatW illem sw asffveryreligious,''and thataftezIfinnettdiscussed hishusband, W illem saw ltwardly stopped talking,and thereafterwould periodically ask him aboutachurch in hishom etown thathosted abluegrassconcert.ECF N o.1-2,at6 & 10.lG nnettstatesthat thism ade lnim frvery uncom fortable in hiswork environm ent''ld.at6.lo nnettalso asserts thatW illem s dictated an em ailto Iiinnettsentby M ike D illon,falsely accusing Io nnettof having m ade unauthorized m odifications to com puter software.zLdaat8.Finally,he alleges thatLouch terminated hisem ploym entatW illem s'requestand thatW illem soffered Louch a resllme ofa chuzch memberto considerin ftlling ltinnett'sold position.Id.at7-8.Judge H oppe,aftez observing thatIo nnett's allegation that he w as fued because his sexuality was incom patible with W illem s'religiousbeliefsisnotendtled to a ptesum pdon ofttuth,found thatIo nnettfailed to allegefactssupporéngareasonableinferencethatthepeopleresponsible foz lnis term ination were m otivated by religious bias.See M cclea -Evans v.M d.D e 't of Trans . St. H .Adnnin.,780 F.3d 582, 586 rfHere, although Coleman's compbint 2Kinnettprovidesno factssupporting thisallegaéon,norany detat ' lsasto how heknowstllisorwhy he believesitto be tn le. 9 conclusozily alleges that ghej was tezminated based on lais race,it does notassezt facts establishingtheplausibilityofthatallegation.').Thecotzrtagrees. The fstst major defectin Iinnett's pleadings is that allallegadons are directed at W illem s,an FBIem ployee,whileIu nnettwasem ployed bySotera.ECF N o.1-2,at5-6.Thus, Ioinnetthasfailed to plead a discrim inatory m oéve on thepartofllisffem ployery''Sotera.See Butletv.DtiveAuto.Indus.ofAm.,lnc.,793F.3d 404,408 (4th Cit.2015)(fAn entitycan be held liablein a Title VI1 action only ifitisan temployer'ofthe complainant.').W lnile K innettarguesthatthe FBI's controlofllisw ork petm its the courtto vicadously attdbute 'W illem s'alleged m odves to Soteza, fTgtlhe factthattwo endtiesexercised controlover one em ployee does not necesslrily render one com pany liable for the acts of the other's em ployees.''ECF N o.35,at 11.See Lee v.M attis,Civ.Act.N o.PX 17-2836,2018 W L 3439261,at*35 (13.Md.July 17,2018) (collece g casesfor the proposition that fjoint employer liability doesnotby itselfimplicate vicariousliabilitf'and <(a finding thattwo companiesare an employee'sjointemployers'only affects each employer'sliability to the employee fortheirown acéons,notfor each other's actions7) (internalquotation marks ornitted).AIIthe same,even asslpming thatW illem s'actionscould be attdbuted to Sotera, Io nnett'sallegationsdo notriseabovem ezespeculation thatW illem s'behaviorw asm otivated by llis religious beliefs.Ifinnettalleges that a very religious supelvisor paused awltwardly duting a conversation thatrevealed IG nnett's hom osexuality and m ade severalcom m ents aboutlnischutchto Ionnettafterward.AsJudgeHoppefound,whilethisbehavioriscertainly consistentwitlareligiousbias,itisinsufficientto petm itthecom tto infetsuch bias. TheCom plaintallegestwo sepazateclnim sofreligiousdiscrim inaéon:disparateim pact and hostileenvironment.Undezadisparateimpacttheory (CountOne),Ifinnettmustpoint to someemploymentpracécethatisfffaciallyneutzalitagitsqtreatm entofdifferentgroupsbut thatinfactfallgsjmoreharshlyononegroupthananotherandcannotbejustifiedbybusiness necessity.''Abdus-shahidv.MaorofBalt.,674 F.App'x267,274 (4th Cir.2017).Ioinnett never ffidentiûed a policy or practice that disproportionately burdened a protected group.'' ECF No.35,at13.(TAtbest,IonnettassertsthattheFBI'scontzolofhisprojectand the m eansofcom pleéng itconstittztes an em ploym entptactice thathad a disparateim pactupon h1 'm .''Id.In support of this allegation,however,Iiinnettcites to a single incidentin wlzich Baznesins% ctedlzim nottoworkwithlohn Haire,allegedlyinvioladonoffederalregulaéon, without any allegaéon as to how this incident connects to W illem s'alleged bias.1d.at 8. W ithout som e reglzlaz practice of an em ployer that goes beyond Tfm ere occurrence of isolatedgp accidentalrj orsporadic discriminatory acts,Ionnettcannotstate aviable clqim . Andreanav.Va.Beach CityPub.Schs.,No.2:17cv574,2018W L 2182297,at*15 (E.D.Va. 2018). Kinnettalso allegesthathewassubjected toahostileworkenvironment(CountTwo). ECF N o.1-2,at10.f<A clnim fozahostilewozk envitonm entisa form ofdisparatettea% ent where the em ployet'scliscrim inatory acdonsim properly altered fthe term s and conditions of employm ent,even though theemployeeisnotdischarged,dem oted,otzeassigned.'''Jackson v.Deen,959 F.Supp.2d 1346,1352 (S.D.Ga.2013)(quoting Hulse v.PddeRests.LLC, 367F.3d 1238,1245(111 Cir.2004)).To stateaclnim forahostilewotk envitonmentbased on religious disczimination, Ionnett must plausibly allege that the treatment was: (1) unwelcome;(2)based on religion;(3)sufficientlysevereorpervasivetoaltertheconditionsof employmentandcreateanabusiveatmosphere;and(4)thatthereissomebasisforimposing liabilityon theemployez.SeeE.E.O.C.v.SunbeltRentals,Inc.,521F.3d306,313 (4thCir. 2008)9Mustafav.lancu,313F.Supp.3d 684,695(E.D.Va.2018). The third oftheaboveelem ents,thata defendant'sconductbe Kfsevereand pervasive,'' ffhas130th asubjectiveandan objectivecomponent.''Hazzisv.ForkliftS s.Inc.,510U.S.17, 21-22(1993).Todetermineifaworkenvironmentwasobjectivelyhostile,thecourtmustlook to the totality ofthe circum stances,including the ftequency ofthe discrim inatory conduct,its severity, whether it is physically threatening oz hlzm iliating zather than a m ere offensive utterance,whetheritunreasonably interfereswith work perform ance,and whatpsychological hnrm resulted.SeeH arris,510 U .S.at 21-239Conner v.Schtader-Brid e ortlnt'l lnc.,227 F.3d 179,193 (4th Cir.2000).Tlnisstandard isaTfdemanding';one.Fara her,524 U.S.775, 788(1998).NooneisguaranteedTfrefinementandsophistication''inthei. tinteractionsatwork. Martin v.Merck & Co.,446 F.Supp.2d 615,628-29 (W .D.Va.2006).Rather,they are protected only from ffharassing behavior that is so severe or pervasive as to rendeê the workplaceobjectivelyhostileorabusive.''Hartsellv.Du 1exProds.Inc.,123 F.3d 766,773 (4th Cit.1997).Iunnett'spHncipalgrievance is thatW illemswould ffperioclically''ask 13im abouta church in Ii nnett's hom etown thathosted a bluegtass concert.ECF N o.1-2,at 6. ThatKinnettsubjectively found thisabusive doesnotsupportan objecdve conclusion that thisbehaviorwasffsevereandpervasive.''AsJudgeHoppereasoned: qvinnett) does not identify any physically threatening or hlnm iliating conduct,nordoeshe state thatW illem s's com m ents interfered wit.h his w ork perform ance.lnstead,the isolated or scattered com m ents,M ustafa,313 F.Supp.3d at695,served only to m ake lo nnett fKuncom fortable in his work envitonm ent'' because he perceived those com m ents as signaling W illem s's religious disapproval of llis sexual orientation. W illem s's com m entsw ere,atworst,rudeorinconsidetate,butcertainly not the type ofconductneeded to state a hostilew ork envitonm ent cllim . W hile certain actionsW illem sallegedly took,such astheem ailsentby D illon butdictated by W illem s and the placem entofIo nnetton a perform ance im provem entplan,would have a greaterim pacton IG nnett's em ploym ent,butIoinnettdoes not allege any facts connecdng them to eitherW illem s'religiousbeliefsorIfinnett'ssexualorientadon.ECF N o.1-2,at8-9. W ithoutsom e plausible factazalconnection,these are sim ply workplace incidents.Finally,as stated above,W illem swasneitheran em ployee noragentofSotera,and thusIiinnettfailsto m eetthefourth elem entofa hostilewozk environm ent. ln his Objections to the Report and Recommendation,Ionnett reiterates the allegations put forth in lnis Com plaint and argues that ffprevious actions taken by FB1 em ployees...show apattern and pzactice ofcreating ahostilew ork enviêonm entforcontract em ployeesand violating 48 CFR 37.104 prohibition ofpersonalserdces conttactinp''ECF N o.37,at3.ffcontractem ployees,''however,ate notaprotected classofpersonsunderTitle V ll;that FBI em ployees allegedly had a f'pattezn and practice of czeating a hostjle work environm ent':for contractem ployeesdoesnotzender lo nnett'sclnim sviable.See 42 U .S.C. j2000e-2(a)qistingprotectedclassesunderTitleVI1). Addidonally, Ionnett states in his Objections that he complained to Jack Hess (ExecutiveVicePresidentofNationallntelligenceatSotera)andLouch,butneitherinterceded on bisbehalf,despite Louch'sassurance thatffshe had gotten nothing butpositive feedback regarding gliinnett'sq performance.'' ECF N o. 37, at 3. Iiinnett states that, when he com plained aboutthe Tfpezsonalserdcescontractsittzation''to H ess,li nnettffteared up and needed to regain hiscom postue before condnuing,to explain theunlaw fulcondidonsofltis em ploym enty''only to have hisconcernsdismissed offhandedly by H essproclnim ing <O h,the FBIisa diffkultclient.'''Id.at4.D istdctcouztsgenezally do notconsidezevidence zaised in objectionsto aReportandRecommendation thatcould havebeen,butwasnot,presented to tl aemagisttatejudge.UnitedStatesv.Ve a,386F.Supp.2d 161,163(W .D.N.Y.2005).This new O egation that Ii nnett com plained to an executive at Sotera, unm entioned in the Com plaint,vaguely statesthatlG nnettcom plained regarding fTthe personalservicesconttact sit-uaéon.'' W hether the com plaint loinnett m ade included a report of W illem s' alleged discrim inatory conductisunclear.Thevaguenessofthisnew allegaéon preventsany plausible inferencethatWillems'allegedbiasshouldbeattributedtoSotera.Neitherdotheseobjecéons provide any connection between the FBI's em ploym ent practice as it zelated to contract em ployees and W illem s'zeligious bias.Finally,no m atterwhatlG nnett'sreaction wasto llis work environm entor to whom he com plained,a few ffisolated or scattered incidents''does not am ount to conduct that is <rpervasive enough to state a claim for hostile work environm ent''M ustafa,313 F.Supp.3d at695.Seealso H o ldnsv.Baltim ore Gasand Elec. Co.,77F.3d745,753(4th Cir.1996)r<A handfulofcommentsspreadovermonthsisunlikely to havesogteatan emotionalimpactasaconcenttated orincessantbarrage.'). The cotutagreesw1:. 1'1Judge Hoppe- lGnnettfailsto articulate aclnim forreligious discrim ination.CountsO ne and Two arethusD ISM ISSED . B. 14 ln CountThtee,lû nnettallegeshe wasdiscrim inated againstbased on his sex.A sa preliminarymatter,thecourtagreeswithJudgeHoppethatthecontextofthiscasem akesit clearthatIiinnet'trefersto hissexualorientation,ratherthan hisbiologicalsex.ECF N o.35, at 18.The Fourth Circuithas held that ffTitle V II does not afford a cause of action for discrinainadon based on sexualotientadon.''W ri htson v.Pizza Hutof Am .,99 F.3d 138,143 (4th Cir.1996).Fourth Citcuitlaw thusrequitesthecolzrtdismissthisclnim.Even ifsuch a cause ofaction were provided,lo nnettfailsto state a disparate treatm entcllim underTitle VIl because he has not alleged suffcient facts to show that he was discrim inated ar inst because ofhissexualorientaéon. To establish causation forasex-cliscrim ination cleim undezTitleV1I,theplaindffm ust show thathissex wasa<fm otivating factor':in thedecision to take adverse action againsthim . 42U.S.C.j2000e-2(m);seeN assar,570U.S.at360-61.Theonly factamlallegationsmadein the Com plznt to establish that W illem s' actions weze m oévated by Ioinnett's sexual odentadon w ere that W illem s was allegedly uncom fortable dudng a convetsaéon about li nnett'shusband and thatW illem sTfperiodically':asked Io nnettabouta concerthosted by a church.ECF No.1-2,at6.ludgeHoppefoundthatffloinnettfcanonlyspectzlate'thatWillems w asm otivated byreligiousbiasagainstgaym en.''ECF N o.35,at19. Thecourtagrees.Io nnetthasallegedonly afew passing comm entsfzom W illem s,none ofwllich explicitly state any biasagainstIoinnetton the basis of hom osexuality and are too few and too vagtze to plausibly im ply such bias.Even if the court assum ed thatW illem s' behaviorwasmotivated by relkiousbiasagainsthomosexuality,a1lofthe above discussed weaknessesofItinnett'sCom plaintapply here w1t.11equalforce.W illem s'behaviororalleged bias cannot be attributed to Sotera,cannotbe connected to a specifk pattern or pracéce's disparateimpacton Ivinnett,and did notriseto thelevelofsevereand pew asive.CountThree isD ISM ISSED . Finally,Ii nnettallegesthatSoteza retaliated againsthim in violation ofTitle VI1 for having com plained aboutreligiousand sex-based discrim ination.To state a retaliation clmim underTitleVII,aplaindffgenerallymustshow T<(1)engagementin aprotectedactivity;(2) adverse employment acéon;and (3) a causallink between the ptotected activity and the em ploym ent acdon.'' Colem an, 626 F.3d at 190.A plaintiff is also protected under this provision when he com plnins ofacdons thatare Tfnotacttzally urllawfulunderTitle V II,''so longasheplausiblyallegesTffanobjectivelyreasonablebeliefinlightofallthecircumstances that a Title VI1 violation has happened or is in progress.'''Cf.Strothers,895 F.3d at327 (cliscussing the standard on stmamary judgment) (quoting Bo er-Liberto v.Fontainebleau C-()zpm,786F.3d264,282 (4th Cir.2015)(en bancl). . Sotera argued,and Judge Hoppe agreed,thatIonnettfailed to show a causallink between hiscom plaintofdiscrinnination and histetmination.Thecourtagreesaswell.liinnett states in the Complnintthat,after he com plained to Sotera,Sotera TTtook m aterially adverse acdons against ' j,inclucling,butnotlimited to,issuing disciplinary warnings,such as counseling and Perform ance Im provem ent Plans; thteats of tet-minadon; reprim ands by supervisors;and tet-mination.''ECF N o.1-2,at13.IG nnettdoesnotallege any factsbeyond the f<conclusory assertion''thathem ade form aland inform alcom plaintsto Sotera.Beyond a vague asserdon that he discussed a fKconstzuctive clischarge attem pt''with Roy Plant, the 16 Complaintdoesnotidentifyanycomplaintsaboutclass-baseddisczimination.AsludgeHoppe States: ffgAlmbiguouscomplaintsthatdo notmaketheemployezaware ofalleged discrim inatorym isconductdo notconsétuteprotected activity.''Id.at*16 (quotadon mazksonaitted).Though lfinnett m ay have told PlantthatW illem sm ade false allegaéonsagninst lnim via D illon'sem ail,W illem sdid notlike liinnett,and Sotera em ployeeswere acdng in conttavenéon ofthe personalservices contract,theseaccusations,standing alone,w ould notputSoteta on nodce ofunlaw ftzlactivityunderTitleV1l. ECF No.35,at20.Ifinnett'sobjecéonsto theReportandRecommendation allegeanother com plaintm adeto H ess.A sstated above,how ever,the nature ofthiscom plaintand what exactlyIvinnettreported istoo vague to sustain IG nnett'sclnim s.CountFotu is D ISM ISSED . 111. Itinnett'smotionsttwo motionsforleaveto amend and amotion foracouttruling on lzisjointemploymentstatus)areaddtessedbelow. A. loinnettftled two m otionsrequesting perrnission to am end hisoriginalpleading.ECF N os. 25 & 30.Specifkally,Io nnett alleges that he ftled a Freedom of Inform ation A ct rfFOlA'') requestwith the OFCCP forinformadon concerning their investigadon oflnis charge,buthe did notreceivezesponsivem aterialuntilafterl' lisCom plaintwasfiledinA ugust 2018.Id.Though courtsareto frfreelygiveleave''to amend Tfwhen justiceso requites,''Fed. R.Civ.P.15 (a)(2),motionsto amend may be derlied where ffthe amendmentwould be prejudicialtotheopposingparty,therehasbeenbad fait. h on thepartofthemovingparty,or theamenHmentwould befutile,''Edwardsv.CityofGoldsboro,178 F.3d 231,242 (4th Cir. 1999). Iûnnett'sflrstproposed amendmentaEegesthatSotezaffdefrauded ghimjbymeansof falseand defam atorysworn statem entsprovided to the O FCCP invesdgaton''ECF N o.30-2, at72.Tostateacllim forcommon1aw fraudinVirginia,aplaintiffmustestablish:<(1)afalse zepzesentation,(2)ofamatezialfact,(3)madeintentionallyand knowingly,(4)with intentto rnislead,(5)reliancebythepartylnisled,and (6)resultingdamageto thepartymisled.''Winn v.AledaConstr.Co.,277Va.304,308,315S.E.2d 193,195(1984).lGnnettidentxesaseries ofallegedly false statem entsthatSoteraem ployeesm ade to OFCCP dtuing the invesdgation ofhis discrim inaéon charge butdid notidenéfy any false statem ents thathe him selfrelied upon to hisdettim ent.SeeECF N o.31-2,at14-15.Thushisflrstproposed am endm entfails to state aclnim ofactazalfraud. Ivinett's second proposed am endm ent adds a paragraph to his hostile work envizonmentcloim alleging thatTfgtjheFBIhad created ahostilework environm entincluding threatsofphysicalviolence''and hewasTfintimidated from m aking com plaintsregarcling FB1 employee's gsic) unlawfulsupervision of gsotera'sj employees.''ECF No.31-2,at 15-16. lo nnett'sproposed pleading doesnotofferm uch in thew ay ofdetailregarding these threats, butdoescitegenerally to hisattached OFCCP chargein which he describesathreatfrom an FB1employeeto fTbeatthesllitoutofgllgnz''overaschedlzling dispute.ECF No.1-3,at1516.Ioinnettdoesnot,how evez,allege any connection between thisthzeatand hisreligion or sexualorientadon.Tlaiscom m entacttmllyseem sto havebeen m adebeforeIiinnetteverbegan 18 wozkingwithW illem s,and logically could nothavebeen related to any ofli nnett'sallegaéons ofdiscrim inaéon. In llis Objections,Ioinnettargtzes thathe did rely on the allegedly false statements provided to OFCCP investkatozsin thathe ffrelied on the Defendantto provide truth statem entsregarding hisem ploym entand tezminadon to the O FCCP inveségatorsacéng as llis agent as requited by 1aw .77ECF N o.37,at 5.Ioinnett atgues that the false statem ents provided negadvely influenced the itw eségaéon, and that his reliance on Tfthe process m andated by1aw to protecthisrights':saésfiesthe elem entsofacom m on 1aw cloim ofacttzal fraud.Id.Io nnettlnisconstruestheseelem ents- to stateacbim foractualfraud,Io nnettm ust plead teliance by the individualwho was nlisled.Acm alfraud requires a lo nnett plead an intenéonal, false representation, and that the party that was rnisled reEed on tlaat representation.W inn,277 Va.at308,at315 S.E.2d at195.A generalrehance on othersto tell thetruth willnotsuffk e. Ii nnett'sm otionsto am end are D EN IED . B. Finally,JudgeHoppe found thatIunnett'smotion requeséng thatffthe Courtrule on thePlaindff'sclnim ofJointEmploymentstat'uswith (Sotezaqand the (FBIIin violation of48 CFR 37.104,77ECF N o.28,should be denied.A fter obserdng thatthe m otion,while not recognized by theFedetalRulesofCivilPzocedtzre,could be construed asaM otion to Am end to add allegatbnsrelated toIinnett'sjointemploym entstam s,JudgeHoppefoundthatsuch an qmendmentwould be futile.TheFotutlaCircuithasheld thatthejointemployerdoctrine can be applied to cllim s under Title VlI.Butler,793 F.3d at408-10.The purpose ofthe 19 doctzineisto ffpzeventgthosewhoeffectivelyemployaworkezfzom evadingliabilitybylniding behind another entity,such asa staffing agencp''1d.The doctrineisinapplicable to the facts athand,however.Even iftheFBIand SoterawereIGnnett'sjointemployers,neithercould beheldliableunderTitleVII,forasJudgeHoppereasoned: Ifinnett's factualallegadons,accepted as trlle,do notsupporta teasonableinferencethathe suffered som e adverse em ploym ent acéon because of his sex,sexualorientadon,non-conform ance to a superdsor'szeligiousscruples,orpatticipation in protected activity.I-lis hostile wotk envitonm ent clsim fails because the facts alleged do not show he was subjected to ffseveze and Pervasive'' harassm ent, hum iliation, or intim idaéon. Io nnett's fçJ 'ointem ploym ent''statuscannotcure thosedefects. ECF No.35,at23.JudgeHopperecommended thatlGnnett'sm oéon bedenied. lnltisObjecdonstotheReportandRecommendation,IGnnettcitestoStaubv.Proctor Hos ital,562U.S.411(2011),which dealswiththeffcat'spaw theoly''inthecontextofthe Uniformed Services Employment and ReemploymentAct (fTUSERRAA).The USERRA, wllich the Courtreferred to as Tfvery sim ilar to Title V 1I,''provides thata person who is a m em ber ofor hasan obligation to perform servicein a unifozm ed serdce cannotbe denied em ploym entorbe cliscrim inated againstin their em ploym enton accountoftheirobligadon. J-d.aat416.The plaindffin Staub w as a m em berof the U nited States At'my Reserve,w hich required him to attend drilloneweekend petm onth and train fulltim e fortwo to threew eeks ayear.1d.at413.Theplaindffbroughtsuitagainsthisem ployerforllisterm ination.1d.at415. Theterm inadon resulted from acom plaintm ade by theplainéff'sim m ediatesuperdsor,who had shown hostility towazds the plaintiff's service due to the work he nnissed to reportfor duty,to thehead ofhum an resources.Ldxat414.The com plaintwasunzelated to theplainéff's 20 m ilitary dudes,and the head ofhum an resoutcesdid notshare the superdsor'sresentm ents. ldz.Ioinnettdrawsattention to theCotzrt'srulingthat,though thedecision to flrethepllindff was notm ade by a biased individual,itwasm ade on the basis ofa com plaintm oévated by bias.Ldaat422-23.Thecat'spaw theory,petm iténg theplainéffto hold hisemployerliable fozthe anim us of a supervisot who was notcharged with m aldng the ultim ate em ploym ent decision,thusapplied.Id. Even assurning the ffcat's paw''theory could be applied to a Title VII acdon,and assunningsuchatheoryisrelevantinthedeternainadonofIfinnett'saEegedjointemployment status,itisinapplicable to the factsathand.As Staub establishes,to hold an em ployerliable underthistheory,the eatlieragentm ustbem odvated by biasto take som e action to influence the ultim ate decisionm aker,intending to bring aboutthe adverse em ploym entaction.Staub, 562 U .S.at 419.lW nnet't has not alleged these facts.Io nnett's com plaint alleges only an awkward interaction with W illem s,laterdifficuléesin thedevelopm entoftheBO SU H elpdesk project,conflictswith otheremployeesthatappearto beunrelated to IGnnett'sdifikulùes with W illem s,and histernnination byLouch,allegedlyatW illem s'request.Even assum ingthat W illem sdid requestIo nnettbete= inated,lfinnetthasnotpled sufhcientfactsto show that thisrequestw asm oévated by discrim inatory anim us.A sdiscussed above,the few factspled regarcling IG nnett and W illem s'flrst convetsaéon about Ifinnett's husband and W illem s' church and W illem s' later rem arks regarding the chutch are not suffk ient to infer discrim inatory anim us,or thatsuch an anim us m otivated W illem s to bring aboutlo nnett's tet-m ination. 21 The reasoning aréctzlated in Staub v.Proctorisinapplicable to tllis m atter.Io nnett's m otion isDE N IED . W . Forthe zeasonsexplained above,the courtD E N IE S Io nnett's m otions,ECF N os. 25,26,& 30;OVERRULES lonnett'sObjections,ECF No.37;ADOPTSin itsentirety Judge Hoppe'sReportand Recommendadon,ECF No.35;and GRANTS Soteta'smodon to disrniss,ECF N o.2. ltisso O RD ERE D . Entered: ö lKWV - f+f *' * K -tZr# 1 a. . r, M ich F.U rbanski Clj fUnitedStatesDisttictludge 22
]]>
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.
