Carol Williams v. Prince William County, VA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01247-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999795277].. [15-1711]

Appeal: 15-1711

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1711

CAROL WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01247-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

March 22, 2016

Decided:

April 14, 2016

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor M. Glasberg, Maxwelle C. Sokol, VICTOR M. GLASBERG &
ASSOCIATES, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Michelle R.
Robl, County Attorney, Megan E. Kelly, Senior Assistant County
Attorney, Jeffrey R.B. Notz, Assistant County Attorney, Prince
William, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1711

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Carol Williams brought this action against her employer,
Prince

William

County,

Virginia,

alleging

she

was

sexually

harassed and discriminated and retaliated against, in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C.

§§ 2000e

to

2000e-17

(2012).

Challenging

only

the

district court’s dismissal of her retaliation claim, Williams
asserts that the district court erred when it determined she
failed to state an adverse employment action because the court
applied

the

wrong

standard

for

assessing

action in the context of a retaliation claim.

adverse

employment

We agree.

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
626

F.3d

187,

190

(4th

See Coleman v. Maryland Ct. of App.,
Cir.

2010).

When

ruling

on

such

a

motion, we “must accept as true all of the factual allegations
contained in the complaint.”
94

(2007)

(per

curiam).

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
A

complaint

“need

only

give

the

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.”

Id. at 93 (alteration and internal quotation

marks

However,

omitted).

“plaintiffs

may

proceed

into

the

litigation process only when their complaints are justified by
both law and fact.”
(4th Cir. 2009).

Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193
Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, the

complaint must only “state[] a plausible claim for relief” that
2

Appeal: 15-1711

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

“permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct”
sense.”

based

upon

“its

judicial

experience

and

common

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); see Wag

More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (“At
bottom, a plaintiff must nudge [her] claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible to resist dismissal.” (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Title

VII

prohibits

an

employer

from

“discriminat[ing]

against any of [its] employees . . . because [the employee] has
opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
[Title VII].”

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2012).

Because Williams

presented no direct evidence of retaliation, the district court
properly

analyzed

her

retaliation

claim

under

the

burden-

shifting paradigm set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973).

Under this framework, a plaintiff

establishes a prima facie case of retaliation by demonstrating
“(1) engagement in a protected activity; (2) adverse employment
action; and (3) a causal link between the protected activity and
the employment action.”

Coleman, 626 F.3d at 190.

However, we conclude that the district court applied too
stringent a standard for determining what constitutes an adverse
employment

action

retaliation

claim.

for
The

purposes
district

of

stating

court

found

a

Title

that

VII

Williams

failed to state an adverse employment action to establish her
3

Appeal: 15-1711

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

retaliation claim for the same reasons she failed to state an
adverse

employment

discrimination
discrimination
VII’s

action

claim.
claim,

to

establish

However,
the

antiretaliation

adverse

substantive

a

substantive

unlike

action

provision

her

component

“is

not

of

Title

limited

to

discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of
employment.”

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548

U.S. 53, 64 (2006).
Title

VII’s

Instead, the adverse action component of

antiretaliation

provision

can

be

satisfied

by

showing that the employer took “materially adverse” action in
response to an employee engaging in a protected activity, “which
in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable
worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
Id. at 68 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the context of job reassignment allegations, as in this
case,

the

Supreme

reassignment

is

Court

“not

has

stated

automatically

that,

although

actionable,”

it

a
may

job
be

“materially adverse depend[ing] upon the circumstances of the
particular case, and should be judged from the perspective of a
reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering all
the circumstances.”

Id. at 71 (internal quotations marks and

citations omitted).

While changes to the terms, conditions, or

benefits

of

the

plaintiff’s

employment

are

factors

to

be

considered when evaluating “all the circumstances,” the lack of
4

Appeal: 15-1711

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

such changes is not dispositive on the adverse action component
of a retaliation claim.

See id. at 64, 71; see also Lettieri v.

Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640, 650 n.2 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that
the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern broadened
the

Fourth

Circuit’s

adverse

employment

action

standard

to

consider injuries and harms beyond the terms and conditions of
employment).

Therefore, all circumstances indicating that an

action was harmful and materially adverse to the employee should
be

considered.

Given

Williams’

allegations

about

the

unfavorable circumstances she experienced after she filed her
EEO complaint, we conclude that it was error for the district
court to summarily dispose of Williams’ retaliation claim for
the same reasons it disposed of Williams’ discrimination claim.
We also conclude that it was error for the district court
to

analyze

adverse

only

whether

employment

Williams’

action.

Namely,

transfer
it

is

constituted
undisputed

an
that

Williams was informed of her transfer before she filed her first
EEO complaint.

Thus, Williams’ transfer could not have been in

retaliation for her EEO complaints.

Contrary to the district

court’s limitation, however, Williams’ complaint alleged several
additional actions that occurred after her transfer, and which
could be construed as adverse employment actions.
In

particular,

Williams

alleged

that

she

was

denied

a

deserved pay increase, had her office and equipment taken away
5

Appeal: 15-1711

or

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/14/2016

limited,

unattainable
least

and
goals

plausible

reasonable

was
in

discrimination.

excluded
her

that

employee

Pg: 6 of 6

performance

such

from

from

actions

making

or

meetings

and

evaluation.

would

have

supporting

It

given
is

dissuaded
a

charge

at
a
of

See Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 68.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order to the
extent

it

dismissed

Williams’

retaliation

claim

because

she

failed to sufficiently allege an actionable adverse employment
action,

and

we

proceedings. *

remand

to

the

district

court

for

further

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

*

By this disposition, we indicate no view as to the merits
of Williams’ retaliation claim.

6