Rivera v. Prince William County School Board et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 7/22/09. (tfitz, )

IN THE UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

Lisa Rivera,

Plaintiff,
v.

Case

No.

1:O9CV341(GBL)

Prince William CountySchool Board,
Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Prince William County School Board's ("PWCSB") Motion to Dismiss. This case

concerns Plaintiff Ms.

Lisa Rivera's claims that she was sexually
PWCSB retaliated against her for

harassed by a co-worker and that

reporting the harassment by transferring her to a different

school.

There are four

(4)

issues before the Court.

The first

issue is whether Ms.
claim is time

Rivera's Title VII hostile work environment
the Complaint alleges harassment

barred where

"[f]rom September 2005

to February 2007,"

but Ms.

Rivera filed Charge of
later.

her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Discrimination on December 14, 2007, more

{"EEOC")

than 300 days

The second issue

is whether a few isolated incidents of

sexual

harassment over an seventeen-month period are

sufficiently severe

or pervasive to state a claim

for hostile work environment.

The

third issue
PWCSB where

is whether

there

is a basis

for imposing liability on
soon

school board officials

took corrective action as

as Ms.

Rivera complained of harassment.

The

fourth issue is

whether Ms.

Rivera sufficiently alleges an adverse employment

action where Ms. Rivera discussed a transfer to a different

school with school officials but later disagreed with the school
selected for her transfer.

The Court grants Defendant PWCSB's Motion to Dismiss for

four

(4)

reasons.

First,

the Court holds that Plaintiff's

discrimination claim must be dismissed because she filed her

charge of discrimination more than 300 days after the date of the
alleged unlawful conduct. Second, the Court holds that

Plaintiff's complaints about her co-worker's boorish sporadic
behavior spanning a seventeen-month period is insufficient to

state a claim under Title VII.

Third,

the Court holds that the

allegations fail to show a basis for imposing liability on PWCSB

because it took immediate corrective action by investigating the
complaint upon learning of the alleged harassment. Fourth, the

Court holds that the allegations are insufficient to show adverse

employment action because Ms.

Rivera requested a transfer and the

fact that she later disagreed with the school that was chosen does not constitute a significant detrimental effect on

employment.
below.

The Court discusses each issue in greater detail

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ms.

Lisa Rivera is an elementary school teacher

with Defendant Prince William County School Board.

Ms. Rivera

brought hostile work environment and retaliation claims against
PWCSB under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.,

("Title

alleging that she was

subjected to a hostile work environment when she was the object of unwelcome sexual advances from a co-worker and that she faced
retaliation when subsequently transferred to another school. In 2002, PWCSB hired Ms. Rivera as a fifth grade teacher at

Potomac View Elementary School.

Mr.

Robert Gunning was also a Although responsible for

fifth grade teacher at Potomac View.

different sections of the fifth grade, often had to switch classrooms,

Ms.

Rivera and Mr.

Gunning

attend meetings,

and otherwise

work in close proximity to each other.

According to the Complaint,

from September 2005 to February

2007,

Mr.

Gunning made unwelcome sexual advances on Ms.
(Compl. M 13-17.) Ms.

Rivera in

various ways.

Rivera alleges that Mr.

Gunning made comments about her sexual relationship with her

husband.

She also claims that Mr.

Gunning asked her if she would

wear lingerie for him or her husband and offered to buy Ms.

Rivera a red teddy as a Christmas gift.

Ms.

Rivera alleges that

Mr.

Gunning made sexual comments during conversations with her

and frequently used sexual innuendo referring to male genitalia.

Ms.

Rivera claims that Mr.

Gunning sent her at least one email

containing sexual comments and/or sexual innuendo.
further claims that, on one occasion, Mr.

Ms.

Rivera

Gunning smacked and

grabbed her buttocks against her wishes.
On February 23, 2007, Ms. Rivera reported the harassment to

Ms.

Melvina Michie,
H 20.) Ms.

the assistant principal at Potomac View.
Michie stated that Ms. she would report the and on the same day-

(Compl.

incident to the principal, Ms. Porter and Ms.

Susan Porter,

Michie met with Mr.
On February 27,

Gunning to discuss Ms.
2007, Ms. Rivera asked Ms.

Rivera's Porter

complaints.

for documentation from the

February 23 meeting with Mr.

Gunning,

but Ms.

Porter stated that

she could not provide any

information to Ms. {Compl. 11 21-22.)

Rivera under PWCSB rules and regulations.

In March 2007,
to other PWC Public

Ms.

Rivera reported her harassment complaint
including a member of
for

Schools officials,

the

human resources department and the area superintendent

schools.

{Compl.

11 23-24.)
2007, Ms. Porter confronted Ms. Rivera, angry

On March 12, that Ms.

Rivera had contacted the area superintendent without Ms

Porter's knowledge or consent.
March 22,
refusing

(Compl.

1 28.)

Days later on
Rivera for
the

2007,

Ms.

Porter verbally reprimanded Ms.
with Mr. Gunning

to personally meet

to discuss

allegations.

On March 27,

2007,

Ms.

Rivera requested leave to

meet with the human

resources

investigator regarding her

complaint,

and the next day Ms.

Porter reprimanded her for not

properly requesting
On March 29,

leave.
Ms.

(Compl.

H

28.)
with Ms. Porter to discuss

2007,

Rivera met

transferring to another school.
resources that Ms.

Ms.

Porter notified human
(Compl. %

Rivera wished to transfer schools.

29.)

Ms.

Porter also told Human Resources

that Ms.

Rivera

remained uncooperative and unwilling to discuss her allegations
with Mr. Gunning.

That same day,

Ms.

Rivera was notified that she would be
Elementary School on April 13, 2007, to a

transferred to Dumfries

third grade teaching position.
that

(Compl.

f 30.)

Ms.

Rivera stated

she did not wish to go to Dumfries and argued that Mr.

Gunning should be
transferred Ms.
2 007, Ms.

transferred instead.
to Dumfries.
the

On April
^1

13,

2007,

PWCSB

Rivera

(Compl.

34.)

On May 11,

Rivera was

told that

investigation of her case was

closed.

Ms.

Rivera never received the

results of

the

investigation.

Ms.

Rivera

filed an EEOC complaint and received her Right

to

Sue Notice on December 31,

2008.

Ms.

Rivera filed a Complaint in

this Court against Mr. Count I

Gunning and PWCSB alleging four counts: Count II (Retaliation); Count III
IV

(Sexual Harassment);
Infliction of

(Intentional

Emotional Distress);

and Count

(Assault and Battery).

PWCSB now moves

for dismissal of all

claims.1
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Federal Rule of
granted unless

Civil

Procedure

12 (b)(6)
is

motion should be

an adequately stated claim

"supported by

showing any set of
complaint." Bell

facts consistent with the allegations
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

in the
561

544,

(2007)

(internal citations omitted);

see Fed. R.

Civ.

P.

12(b)(6).

"A pleading that offers
recitation of

labels and conclusions or a formulaic
a cause of action will not do."

the elements of

Ashcroft v.
U.S. at 555.

Iqbal,

129

S.

Ct.
is

1937,
also

1949

(2009);
if

Twombly,

550

A complaint

insufficient

it relies upon

"naked assertions devoid of
129 S. Ct. at 1949 (internal

further factual enhancement."
citations omitted).

Iqbal,

In order to

survive a Rule forth

12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss a that is plausible on
facially

complaint must set
its face." Id.;

"a claim for relief
550 U.S. at 570.

Twombly,

A claim is

plausible

"when the plaintiff pleads

factual

content

that allows

the court to draw the reasonable
liable for the misconduct
555 U.S. at 556.

inference that
Iqbal, 129

the defendant is
S. Ct. at 1949;

alleged."

Twombly,

Originally,

the

Complaint

alleged claims

against

both PWCSB and

Mr.

Gunning.

On May 1,

2009,

Ms.

Rivera filed a Stipulation of

Dismissal, dismissing Count III (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) and Count IV (Assault and Battery) of the Complaint,

result,
the only

and dismissing Mr. Gunning as a defendant. As a Counts I and II are the only remaining counts and PWCSB
remaining Defendant.

In considering a Rule

12(b)(6)

motion,

the

Court must

construe

the complaint

in the

light most

favorable to the

plaintiff,

read the complaint as a whole, Mylan Lab.,

and take the facts v. Matkari, 7 F.3d the

asserted therein as true. 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993) .

Inc.

In addition to the complaint,

court may also examine by reference,
notice."

"documents incorporated into the complaint

and matters of which a court may take judicial
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S.

Tellabs,

Ct.

2499,

2509

(2007).

"Conclusory allegations

regarding the

legal effect of the

facts alleged"

need not be accepted.

Labram

v.

Havel,

43 F.3d 918,

921

(4th Cir.

1995).

Because the central "fair notice

purpose of the complaint is to provide the defendant

of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," the plaintiff's legal allegations must be supported by
to allow the defendant to prepare a

some factual basis sufficient

fair response.

Conley v.

Gibson,

355 U.S.

41,

47

(1957).

III.

ANALYSIS

A.

Hostile Work Environment

-

Time Bar

The Court grants

PWCSB's Motion to Dismiss Count I of the

Complaint as time barred because,
contained in the Complaint, Ms.

based on the allegations

Rivera failed to file her charge
of the conduct complained of.

of discrimination within 300 days

Title VII requires a complainant to file an EEOC administrative

charge within either 180 or 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

depending on the jurisdiction.
"deferral"

42

Because Virginia is a

jurisdiction,

a complainant is required to

file an EEOC

administrative charge within 3 00 days of the alleged unlawful

conduct.
Cir.

See Edelman v.

Lynchburg Coll.,

300 F.3d 400,

404

(4th

2002).

Here,

Ms.

Rivera's

Complaint

states

that

the harassment

occurred "[f]rom September 2005 to February 2007."
13.) The plain meaning of
took place

(Compl.

H

the word

"to"

indicates that the
However, Ms.

harassment

up until

February 2007.

Rivera did not file her formal EEOC charge of discrimination
until December 14, harassment ended.
pled.

2007, As

over 300 days Count I is

after

the alleged

such,

time barred as currently

Ms.

Rivera argues that

sexual harassment is a continuing
and

violation in the context of a hostile work environment claim, therefore her claim is
the 300-day period.

timely so long as any act occurred within
true, the Court

Accepting this argument as in the Complaint

finds no allegations

indicating that any of the

acts complained of
her EEOC charge. 2007. In order

took place within 3 00 days of when she filed
Ms. Rivera filed her charge to be on December 14, the continuing

for

her charge

timely under

violation doctrine,

some act would have needed to have occurred

on or after February 16, before the December 14

2007,

because February 16

is 300 days

filing date.

By the language of the

Complaint,

however,

all of the alleged conduct occurred prior to
the period of harassment took place "to"

February 2007 because

February 2007,

or up until February 2007.

Consequently,

the

claim is untimely even under the continuing violation doctrine.
Ms. Rivera also argues that Count I is timely because 2007, she

filed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire on May 25,

well before

the date that she

filed the

formal charge,

and that her Intake

Questionnaire constitutes a charge under the Code of Federal

Regulations and Edelman.
whether the

The Court need not address
constitutes

the issue of

Intake Questionnaire

an EEOC charge

because facts regarding the
before the Court. Ms.

filing of the Questionnaire are not

Rivera's Opposition Brief mentions that

she filed an Intake Questionnaire with the EEOC but,
the four corners of the Complaint, there

examining

is no mention whatsoever

of an Intake Questionnaire.

Ms.

Rivera cannot use her Opposition
Katz v. v. Odin, 999 332 F. F.

to PWCSB's Motion to amend her Complaint. Supp. 2d 909, 917 n.9 (E.D. Va. 2004);

Davis

Cole,

Supp.

809,

813

(E.D.

Va.

1998)

(refusing to allow plaintiff to

use his opposition brief
complaint); Zachair, Ltd.

to refute facts contained in his
v. Driggs, 965 F. Supp. 741, 748 n.4

(D.

Md.

1997)

("[plaintiff]

is bound by allegations

contained in

its complaint and cannot,

through the use of motion briefs,

amend

the

complaint.")the hostile

Consequently,

the

Court dismisses
claim

Count

I

because

work environment

is untimely as pled.

B.

Hostile The

Work Environment

-

Sufficiency of the

Claim

Court grants

PWCSB's motion to dismiss even if not time

the hostile work the claim is case a of

environment not

claim because,

barred,

sufficiently pled.

In order

to plead a prima

facie

sexual

harassment based on a hostile work environment,

plaintiff must
harassment; 2)

allege
the

that

"1)

she experienced unwelcome
based on her gender . . .; 3)

harassment was

the

harassment was

sufficiently

severe or pervasive

to alter

the

conditions of
there
Bass

employment
for
de

and create an abusive atmosphere;
imposing liability on the
Co., 324 F.3d

and 4)

is
v.

some basis
E.I. DuPont

employer."
765 (4th

Nemours

&

761,

Cir.),

cert,

denied,

540

U.S.

940

(2003).

A plaintiff

alleging

hostile work environment must
allege each element of [her]

"set

forth facts
Id.

sufficient

to

claim."

(internal

citations

omitted).
pled.

Here,

the

third and fourth elements

are

insufficiently

1.
The

Severe or pervasive
Court holds that the

harassment
isolated incidents alleged in the

Complaint are
harassment so

insufficient
"severe

to show that
that

Ms.
it

Rivera
altered

faced
the

or pervasive"

conditions of

her employment and created an abusive atmosphere.

10

In determining whether a work environment evaluates
Forklift court may

is

hostile,

a court v.
so, a

the
Sys.,

totality of
Inc., 510

the
U.S.

circumstances.
17, 22-23

See Harris
In doing

(1993). the

inquire

into

"the

frequency of

discriminatory

conduct;

its

severity;

whether

it

is

physically

threatening or

humiliating,

or a mere

offensive utterance;

and whether it Id.

unreasonably interferes with an employees work performance."
at 23. In addition to actual if it is sexual advances, that

a work environment "intimidate,

may be hostile

rife with

comments

ridicule,
First

and maliciously demean the
202 F.3d 234,
are

status of women."
242 (4th Cir.

Smith v.

Union Nat'l Bank,
Ms. Rivera's

2000).

allegations

insufficient

to show severe or

pervasive harassment because
enough to constitute severe

the conduct alleged was not frequent
or pervasive harassment. To

determine whether harassment
evaluate the frequency of the

is

severe or pervasive,
Schwapp v.

courts
of Avon,

conduct.

Town

118

F.3d 106, 2000

110 U.S.

(2d Cir. App.

1997). 2933,

See at

also Lacy v. *10 (4th Cir.

AMTRAK, Feb.

No.

98-1914,

LEXIS

28,

2000)

(citing Schwapp and quoting parenthetically that
steady barrage of opprobrious racial

"there

must be a

comments.").

Isolated or infrequent

instances of

harassment

that occur over a

period of many months
See, e.g., Hartsell v.

is not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Duplex Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 768-69

(4th Cir.

1997)

(dismissing

sexual harassment

claim because six

11

verbal

incidents over a period of approximately three months was

insufficiently severe and pervasive);
Inc., 129 F.3d 1355, 1365-66

Sprague v.
1997)

Thorn Americas,
five to

(10th cir.

(finding

sexually-oriented statements over sixteen months
show hostile work environment, offender occurred as he put his even though one

insufficient
by the

comment

arm around plaintiff,

looked down

the plaintiff's dress and said, can.") .
Here, Ms. Rivera

"well,

you got

to get it when you

identified only four specific

instances of She alleges comments

alleged harassment within a seventeen-month period. that Mr. Gunning: 1) sent an email containing sexual

(Compl.

% 16);

2)

asked if Ms.

Rivera would wear a red teddy for
a Christmas gift

him or her husband and offered to buy her one as

{Compl.

1 14);

3)

smacked and grabbed Ms.

Rivera's buttocks

against her wishes

(Compl.

t 17);

and used sexual innuendo
with Ms. Rivera

referring to male genitalia

in conversations

(Compl.
the

H 15).

This

type of sporadic,
necessary App. LEXIS to be 2933,

isolated conduct

is not

"steady barrage" 2000 U.S.

actionable at *10;

under Title VII. 123 F.3d

See Lacy,
at 768-69.

Hartsell,

Furthermore,

the

conduct

alleged,

although offensive

to Ms.

Rivera,
hostile

is not of

the

quality or severity required to state a
claim. Not all sexual harassment is

work environment

actionable under Title

VII.

See Hartsell,

123

F.3d at

772-773

12

(explaining that Title VII makes no attempt to workplace of vulgarity, but instead seeks

"purge the

to remedy conduct that

alters the conditions of employment)
omitted).
offensive,

(internal citations

Although the acts Ms.
but they are not

Rivera complains of may be
to alter her that the

so offensive as As such, the

conditions of employment. conduct alleged is not
claim for hostile
2. Imposing

Court holds

severe or pervasive enough to state a

work environment.
liability on PWCSB

Even if Ms.

Rivera had sufficiently pled the
the

third element

of her hostile work environment claim,

facts pled are

insufficient to show that

liability should be

imposed on PWCSB

because PWCSB immediately addressed Ms.
harassment as
held liable

Rivera's allegations

of

soon as

she

reported them.

An employer cannot be
co-workers,

for sexual

harassment

by the victim's

unless

the employer

"knew or should have known about

the it." 2008) EEOC

harassment and failed to take effective action to stop v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306, 319 (4th Cir.

(citation omitted);
2006) .
The
its

Howard v.

Winter,

446

F.3d 559,

565

(4th Cir.

Court

finds

Plaintiff's
v.

present
No.

case

similar to one of
2006 WL 1049157

earlier cases,

Saran

Harvey,

05-727,

(E.D.

Va.

Apr.

17,

2006).

In Saran,

the

plaintiff,

a

secretary

employed by the U.S.

Army,

alleged that

two co-workers made

13

several comments that plaintiff younger secretary." Id. at *2.

should be replaced with "a Plaintiff admitted that she told
including her

no one about the discriminatory comments,

supervisor,

while they were being made.

Id.

Later,

when she
the

informed her supervisor about her co-workers' plaintiff's

comments,

supervisor promised that he would inform his staff

that harassment would not be tolerated and that all personnel
would be fully compliant. Id. at *11. No harassing statements

were made after her supervisor addressed the
Court granted summary judgment against

issue.

Id.

This

the plaintiff on her

hostile work environment claim because
that 1) the

she failed to establish
of the harassment; or

defendant had prior knowledge

2)

the employer failed to respond once notified.2
The facts of this
that

Id.
in Saran. Here,
to

case are similar to those
she was harassed from

Ms.

Rivera alleges

"September 2005

February 2007."

(Compl.

H 13.)

However,

Ms.

Rivera did not

report the alleged harassment to a school administrator until
February 23, 2007, after the period of harassment had already

ended.

(Compl.

H 20.)

Like the plaintiff

in Saran,

Ms.

Rivera
As

failed to report the conduct while it was actually occurring.
such, nothing in the allegations shows that

Defendant knew of the

harassment while

it was

occurring.

2In Saran, the defendant moved the Court to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, alternatively,
for summary judgment. Id. at *1.
14

Furthermore, Complaint

as

in Saran, Defendant

the took

allegations immediate
Ms. Rivera

in the present action

show that
the

corrective

upon learning of

harassment.

reported the

harassment on February 23,
the school's principal

2007

(Compl.

1

20),

and that same day

and assistant principal met with Mr.

Gunning to discuss the allegations.
2007, Ms. Rivera met with Ms. Porter

{Compl.

^ 21.}

On March 29,

to discuss

transferring to

another school,
notified that

(Compl.

^ 29),

and that same day Ms.

Rivera was

she would be transferred to Dumfries Elementary

School

(Compl.

%

30).

Here,

as in Saran,

there are no
the transfer took

allegations

that

the harassment

continued after

place.

As

such,

accepting

Plaintiff's

allegations as

true,

it

is

clear that Defendant
concerns.

took

immediate

steps

to address Ms.

Rivera's

Ms.

Rivera argues

that,

although not

alleged

in

the

Complaint, because one of the the

Defendant assistant alleged

knew of

the

harassment before overheard Ms. in the

February 2007

principal

Rivera discussing school year.

incidents This

early

2005-2006

(Pl.'s above,

Opp'n 8.) Ms.

argument

fails

because,

as mentioned to amend her
999 F. Supp.

Rivera cannot
Katz, 332 F.

use her Opposition Brief
Supp. 2d at 917 n.9;

Complaint.

Davis,

at

813;
Ms.

Zachair,
Rivera

Ltd.,
also

965

F.
in

Supp.

at

748

n.4.
fashion that, even if

argues

conclusory

Defendant

did not actually know of

the

harassment,

it

should have

15

known because the conduct

occurred in a school
support

setting.

Ms.

Rivera cited no legal authority as

for this argument.

The Court finds nothing particular about a school

setting to

suggest that an employer should be aware of an employee's alleged
but unreported harassment of a co-worker. As such, the Court

finds
impose

the Complaint

fails

to show that

it would be proper to

liability on Defendant.

Consequently, barred and,

the Court dismisses Count

I because

it

is

time

even if not time barred,

it fails to state a claim

for hostile work environment.

C.

Retaliation The

- Adverse Employment Action Count II of the Complaint because the

Court dismisses

allegations

fail

to

show that Defendant

took adverse employment

action against Ms. under Title VII,

Rivera.

To state a claim for retaliation 1) the employee engaged
adverse employment

a plaintiff must allege:
2) the employer

in protected activity;

took

action against the employee;

and 3)

a causal

connection existed
action. Munday v.

between the protected activity and the

adverse

Waste Mgmt.

of N.

Am.,

Inc.,

126

F.3d 239,
be

242

(4th Cir.

1997).
that

Adverse employment

action must

"materially adverse,"

is,

the employer's actions might have
from making or

"dissuaded a reasonable
of discrimination."

worker

supporting a charge

Burlington Northern

& Santa Fe Ry.

Co.

v.

White,

548

U.S.

53,

68

16

(2006)

(citations omitted). however,

Mere reassignment or transfer "to a does not constitute an adverse

less appealing job,"

employment action.
Va. 2005). Instead,

Peary v.

Goss,

365 F.

Supp.

2d 713,

722

(E.D.

"reassignment can only form the basis of a

valid Title VII claim if the plaintiff can show that the
reassignment had some significant detrimental effect." Boone v.

Goldin,

178 F.3d 253,

256

(4th Cir.

1999).

"[A]bsent any decrease in compensation,
responsibility, or opportunity for promotion,

job title,

level of

reassignment to a

new position commensurate with one's

salary level does not

constitute an adverse employment action even if the new job does cause some modest stress not present in the old position." at 256-57; 173 05 (E.D. Dawson v. Va. Feb. Rumsfeld, 2, 2006) No. 05-1270, 2006 U.S. Dist. Id. LEXIS

(granting defendant's motion to
teacher failed to allege that "significant

dismiss because elementary school

proposed transfer to another class would have
detrimental effect" on her).

Here,

the allegations fail to show that Ms.

Rivera's Ms. Rivera

transfer constituted an adverse employment action.

was a fifth grade teacher at Potomac View,
PWCSB transferred her to a third grade

(Compl.

1 10),

and

teaching position at

Dumfries
Rivera

(Compl.

H

34).

However,
[Ms.]

according to the Complaint,
Porter to discuss

Ms.

"had a meeting with

transferring

Plaintiff to another school."

(Compl.

1 29.)

Ms.

Rivera opposed

17

the transfer to Dumfries,

(Compl.

H 31),

but she was not entitled
A

to handpick the school that

she would be transferred to.

transfer to Dumfries as opposed to a school and grade level that
Ms. Rivera preferred does not mean that the transfer had a 178 F.3d

significant detrimental effect as contemplated in Boone, 253, because Ms. Rivera does not allege that the transfer

required her to take a reduction in pay or that it otherwise
reduced her future job opportunities. Consequently, the Court

dismisses Count II of the Complaint because Plaintiff fails to
sufficiently plead an adverse employment action.

IV.

Conclusion

The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The Court

dismisses the hostile work environment claim because it is time
barred as pled. Alternatively, the Court dismisses the hostile
fail to show
to show a

work environment claim because the allegations
severe or pervasive harassment and because

they fail

basis for imposing liability on PWCSB.
retaliation claim because

The Court dismisses the
fail to show that Ms.

the allegations

18

Rivera suffered an adverse employment action.
reasons, it is hereby

For the foregoing

ORDERED that Defendant PWCSB's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to
counsel.

Entered this 6*Z*>4 day of July, 2009.

Alexandria,

Virginia

Gerald Bruce Lee

JeL

United States District Judge

07/ L^

/09

19