Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

E.D. Virginia

Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

District Court, E.D. Virginia·Decided October 4, 2022·No. 3:19-cv-00512·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division EHONAM M. AGBATI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:19cv512 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Defendant. AMENDED OPINION! Ehonam “Roger” M. Agbati has sued his former employer, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“VDACS”), alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. Agbati asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”). VDACS has moved to dismiss Agbati’s complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss. The Court will deny the motion as to Agbati’s failure to promote claim under Title VII, but will grant the motion as to Agbati’s remaining claims. The Court, however, will grant Agbati leave to file an amended complaint as to his retaliation and pay discrimination claims under Title VII. I. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT Agbati, an African American immigrant from Togo, began working at VDACS as a part- time hourly employee in July, 2013. Before working at VDACS, Agbati earned a bachelor’s degree from Virginia Commonwealth University in political science, government, and politics,

' This Opinion amends the Court’s April 6, 2020, Opinion, (ECF No. 21), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). (See ECF No. 80.)

with a minor in nonprofit management and administration. In November, 2013, Agbati became a full-time employee at VDACS. Michelle Townsend served as Agbati’s supervisor. During Townsend’s supervision, “there was harmony” among Agbati’s team. (Dk. No. 3, at 9.) But the workplace “started going ‘south’” when VDACS hired Alyssa Royer. (/d.) Around the time that VDACS hired Royer, Alison Foster became Agbati’s supervisor, and Kathryn Land stepped in to fill Foster’s former role. (/d.) During Royer’s first week, Agbati noticed Royer’s “anti-social and discriminatory behavior.” (/d. at 9-10.) Royer greeted Agbati with a “sarcastic smile” when they walked past one another in the hallway, and he noticed similar treatment toward other African American employees. (/d. at 10.) When Agbati complained to Foster about the discriminatory behavior, Foster told him that others reported similar treatment. Foster also said that she would try to talk to Royer about the behavior. Royer then began closing her office door to avoid contact with “people she [did not] want to talk to.” (/d.) Foster resigned in the fall of 2016. Around the same time as Foster’s resignation, VDACS promoted Agbati’s African American coworker, Joseph Cason. Agbati alleges that Royer did not like how closely Agbati and Cason worked together. Agbati says that Royer created “a coalition of people who look like her” with whom she took walks, ate lunch, and took breaks. (/d.) Land (Foster’s replacement) assumed “‘the role of the coalition’s bully.” (/d@. at 11.) When Land heard Agbati answering calls, she slammed her door closed. Cason resigned after white female employees began complaining about him. When a supervisory position became available in November, 2017, Agbati applied for the promotion. VDACS instead promoted Royer, a white woman. Agbati alleges that he had “the most seniority” and was “the most qualified person” for the promotion. (/d.) Agbati also says that VDACS promoted Royer because she had a “close relationship” with management. (/d. at 12.)

In April, 2018, Agbati filed a grievance with human resources, alleging that Royer created a hostile work environment. (See Dk. No. 3-9.) Agbati advanced his grievance through three levels of internal review pursuant to the VDACS grievance procedure. After each reviewer concluded that his claim lacked merit, the Director of the Office of Equal Employment and Dispute Resolution denied Agbati’s request to have his grievance reviewed at a hearing. Agbati alleges that he was “completely outcast[ed]” after he filed the grievance. (Dk. No. 3, at 8.) Agbati later made several requests under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“Virginia FOIA”) to determine his coworkers’ compensation. Because VDACS determined that the cost to retrieve the records would exceed $200, VDACS charged Agbati a deposit pursuant to Va. Code § 2.2-3704(H).? (See Dk. No. 3-7, at 164.) Agbati refused to pay the deposit. Agbati later retrieved some salary information from public reports available online. Agbati resigned from VDACS effective April 18, 2019. In his resignation letter, he cited the “employment/promotion discrimination perpetrated again [him] and the hostilities” resulting from his “actions to fight the injustices committed against [him].” (Dk. No. 3-6, at 5.) After exhausting his administrative remedies, Agbati filed this case. Agbati’s complaint raises the following claims?: a failure to promote claim under Title VII (Count One); a hostile work environment claim under Title VII (Count Two); a constructive discharge claim under Title VII (Count Three); a retaliation claim under Title VII (Count Four); a pay discrimination claim under Title VII (Count Five); and a claim under the VHRA (Count Six).

2 “(Where a public body determines in advance that charges for producing the requested records are likely to exceed $200, the public body may ... require the requester to agree to payment of a deposit not to exceed the amount of the advance determination.” Va. Code § 2.2-3704(H). 3 Liberally construed, the three “claims” in Agbati’s complaint raise allegations of failure to promote, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation, and pay discrimination under Title VII. Thus, the Court enumerates his Title VII allegations as five separate counts.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division EHONAM M. AGBATI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:19cv512 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Defendant. AMENDED OPINION! Ehonam “Roger” M. Agbati has sued his former employer, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“VDACS”), alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. Agbati asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”). VDACS has moved to dismiss Agbati’s complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss. The Court will deny the motion as to Agbati’s failure to promote claim under Title VII, but will grant the motion as to Agbati’s remaining claims. The Court, however, will grant Agbati leave to file an amended complaint as to his retaliation and pay discrimination claims under Title VII. I. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT Agbati, an African American immigrant from Togo, began working at VDACS as a part- time hourly employee in July, 2013. Before working at VDACS, Agbati earned a bachelor’s degree from Virginia Commonwealth University in political science, government, and politics,

' This Opinion amends the Court’s April 6, 2020, Opinion, (ECF No. 21), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). (See ECF No. 80.)

with a minor in nonprofit management and administration. In November, 2013, Agbati became a full-time employee at VDACS. Michelle Townsend served as Agbati’s supervisor. During Townsend’s supervision, “there was harmony” among Agbati’s team. (Dk. No. 3, at 9.) But the workplace “started going ‘south’” when VDACS hired Alyssa Royer. (/d.) Around the time that VDACS hired Royer, Alison Foster became Agbati’s supervisor, and Kathryn Land stepped in to fill Foster’s former role. (/d.) During Royer’s first week, Agbati noticed Royer’s “anti-social and discriminatory behavior.” (/d. at 9-10.) Royer greeted Agbati with a “sarcastic smile” when they walked past one another in the hallway, and he noticed similar treatment toward other African American employees. (/d. at 10.) When Agbati complained to Foster about the discriminatory behavior, Foster told him that others reported similar treatment. Foster also said that she would try to talk to Royer about the behavior. Royer then began closing her office door to avoid contact with “people she [did not] want to talk to.” (/d.) Foster resigned in the fall of 2016. Around the same time as Foster’s resignation, VDACS promoted Agbati’s African American coworker, Joseph Cason. Agbati alleges that Royer did not like how closely Agbati and Cason worked together. Agbati says that Royer created “a coalition of people who look like her” with whom she took walks, ate lunch, and took breaks. (/d.) Land (Foster’s replacement) assumed “‘the role of the coalition’s bully.” (/d@. at 11.) When Land heard Agbati answering calls, she slammed her door closed. Cason resigned after white female employees began complaining about him. When a supervisory position became available in November, 2017, Agbati applied for the promotion. VDACS instead promoted Royer, a white woman. Agbati alleges that he had “the most seniority” and was “the most qualified person” for the promotion. (/d.) Agbati also says that VDACS promoted Royer because she had a “close relationship” with management. (/d. at 12.)

In April, 2018, Agbati filed a grievance with human resources, alleging that Royer created a hostile work environment. (See Dk. No. 3-9.) Agbati advanced his grievance through three levels of internal review pursuant to the VDACS grievance procedure. After each reviewer concluded that his claim lacked merit, the Director of the Office of Equal Employment and Dispute Resolution denied Agbati’s request to have his grievance reviewed at a hearing. Agbati alleges that he was “completely outcast[ed]” after he filed the grievance. (Dk. No. 3, at 8.) Agbati later made several requests under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“Virginia FOIA”) to determine his coworkers’ compensation. Because VDACS determined that the cost to retrieve the records would exceed $200, VDACS charged Agbati a deposit pursuant to Va. Code § 2.2-3704(H).? (See Dk. No. 3-7, at 164.) Agbati refused to pay the deposit. Agbati later retrieved some salary information from public reports available online. Agbati resigned from VDACS effective April 18, 2019. In his resignation letter, he cited the “employment/promotion discrimination perpetrated again [him] and the hostilities” resulting from his “actions to fight the injustices committed against [him].” (Dk. No. 3-6, at 5.) After exhausting his administrative remedies, Agbati filed this case. Agbati’s complaint raises the following claims?: a failure to promote claim under Title VII (Count One); a hostile work environment claim under Title VII (Count Two); a constructive discharge claim under Title VII (Count Three); a retaliation claim under Title VII (Count Four); a pay discrimination claim under Title VII (Count Five); and a claim under the VHRA (Count Six).

2 “(Where a public body determines in advance that charges for producing the requested records are likely to exceed $200, the public body may ... require the requester to agree to payment of a deposit not to exceed the amount of the advance determination.” Va. Code § 2.2-3704(H). 3 Liberally construed, the three “claims” in Agbati’s complaint raise allegations of failure to promote, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation, and pay discrimination under Title VII. Thus, the Court enumerates his Title VII allegations as five separate counts.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD VDACS has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion gauges the sufficiency of a complaint without resolving any factual discrepancies or testing the merits of the claims. Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). In considering the motion, a court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)), The principle that a court must accept all allegations as true, however, does not apply to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must state facts that, when accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. /d. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Jd. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US. 544, 556 (2007)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). When the plaintiff appears pro se, as Agbati does here, courts do not expect the pro se plaintiff to frame legal issues with the clarity and precision expected from lawyers. Accordingly, courts construe pro se complaints liberally. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). This principle of liberal construction has its limits. /d@ Courts do not need to discern the unexpressed intent of the plaintiff or take on “the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” /d.

Ill. DISCUSSION A. Title VI Claims 1. Count One: Failure to Promote In Count One, Agbati asserts that VDACS failed to promote him based on his race or nationality. To state a claim for discrimination claim based on a defendant’s failure to promote, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that “(1) [he] is a member of a protected group, (2) there was a specific position for which [he] applied, (3) [he] was qualified for the position, and (4) [his employer] rejected his application under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination.” McCaskey v. Henry, 461 F. App’x 268, 270 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). VDACS argues that Agbati fails to plead facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Agbati, an African American immigrant from Togo, alleges that VDACS promoted Royer, a white woman, for the supervisory position over him. He says that he had “the most seniority” and was “the most qualified person” for the promotion. (Dk. No. 3, at 11.) Thus, Agbati alleges “that a member outside the protected class received a promotion instead of [him],” which “is sufficient to create an inference of discrimination.” McCaskey v. Henry, 461 F. App’x 268, 270 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Because Agbati pleads sufficient facts to state a failure to promote claim, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss Count One.* 2. Count Two: Hostile Work Environment In Count Two, Agbati alleges that VDACS maintained a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. To state a hostile work environment claim, plaintiff must plead facts

4 VDACS argues that it did not promote Agbati simply because he lacked the necessary supervisory experience. For support, VDACS cites its promotion criteria and Agbati’s application, both of which Agbati attached to his complaint. (See Dk. No. 3-8, at 119-132.) Although Agbati pleads facts sufficient for his failure to promote claim to survive a motion to dismiss, VDACS may raise those arguments again on summary judgment.

showtihn"ag(th l ee) x peruinewneclehcdao rmaes (s2mt)ehh neat r;a swsambsea nsotenh d i s ra(ce3t;)hh ea raswsasmsue ffincti seenvoteprlre yer vtaaosl ittvheceero ndiotefim opnlso yment ancdr eaanat beu saitvmeo sapnh(de4 rt)eh ;ei rsse o mbea sfoiris m polsiianbgoi ntl hiet y emploPyeerrkv.Ii."nn ' Ptsla pCeor9. 3,F6 . 139d26 0,7 (-40Ct8ih 2r 0.1 V9D)A.C aSr gtuheast Agbattiao l falfaieclgttsemos e etth" es eovpree rrev asstiavned"a rd. Agbsac toim'p "lmauicsnlttaeh airbg ahtr mo"e tehtse e voeprre er vsatsainvEdeEa OrCd .

vS.unbReelnttI anl5cs2.F,1,. 330d36 1,(45 t Chi 2r0.0 T8i)Vt.Il pIer oh"iebxittcrseo mned"u ct th"amtu .s.atm. o tuaonc th aintngh ete e ramncsdo ndiotefim opnlso yFmaernatvg.B.h"o e cra Rat5o2nU4,. 7S7.75 7,(8 1 99Id8to) ne.os ct r e"aa't gee nceirvacilol dineto,ydr" o 'iei tsm pose liabfoir"l tiohtreyd itnrairbyu olfta htweio ornksp lIad(qc. ue o.t"Oi nncgav l.Se u ndowner OffshoSreer Ivns5c.2.,U3, . 7S5.8, 0( 9I9 8T)o)d .e teircfmoi nndequ ucatla issfi eevsoe rr e pervacsoiucvroetn,sst ihtdeoe troa ftlh iceti yr cumisntcaln(uc1dfre)ies nq,gu e(n2sc)ey v;e rity; (3w)hetthhecero ndwuacpsth ysitcharlelaoytr he unmiinlgoi ram teirn·egalo,nyff ensive utteraann(d4c )we h;e tthhecero nduuncrte asionntaebrwlfeiyrtt ehhpd el ainwtoirfkf s performCalnaCcrtyekS.. c Dhi.sv Bt.r. e e5d3eU2n. ,2S 6.28 7,0 (-27010 1). HerAeg,b aaltlite hghaeistssu pertvriehsaiotimrean dn " antia-nsddoi csicarli minato

manngerre,he itwmei dat " hs arscmaiscltleio,chs" eeo rdffi cdeo tooarv ohiidam n,ed x cluded hifrmo amc lioqcfuo ew or(kDeNkro.3s. a,. 9t - 11.A)g baaltasiso s tehraact tos w osrlkaemrm ed hedro ocrl owsheedhn ea nswtehrpeeh do nAetm. o sAtg,b saa tlil'e gsahtotiwho hanets exper"ireutndrceee adt "mceanlbtle,oh"ua sva in"odpr e,r"s coonnaflliidctutyr[h isitn]sig" am te VDACbSu,tt h oesxep erfaileslnh cooerfapst l auhsoisbwtloierel kne v ircolnamSieumnn.tb elt RentIanlc5s.2,F,1 . 3adt3 15B.e caAugsaefab ittlios p letahdha ete xpersieevnoecrre ed pervhaasriavsets hCmeoe unwrtit,dl i ls CmoisuTsnw two i ptrhe judice. 3.CouTnhtr Ceoen:s trDuicstcihvaer ge InC ouTnhtr Aegeb,aa stsite hrttasht ae l ledgiesdc rihmesi unffaetarimeoodnut not s constdriusccthfoiarvrcehgi eint,mgo reTsopi rgonco.ena ec do nstdriuscctthihavereoog fre y discriamp ilnaaimtnuitspoitlnff e,fa a cdts sh ow"i(n1g)d etlhieb eorf[a ttdheeenfe ensdsa nt's] actimoontsi,vb ay[t deids cribmiiaansna(,dt2 t)oho reby j]e icnttiovleeo rfa wbtoihrleki itnyg condiFtrieoenvmsD.a.a n"l -CToirl1pe5.F 0,. 431d43 2,(54 Ctih2r 0.1 4).

Agbati'sd ona olmtle eetgth"a eot bijoencst ive intAoglbeparrtaoibc ieleidtsy ont hsea mfaec tual atlosl uepgphaoictrsoit no sntsr uctcilvaeai shmd ih isos scwthoiarlrkeg e environmBeenctah uicasslle al iemgd.aon t osituo pnapsh o orstwt oirelkne v ircolnamhieimns,t constructcilvaaeil famsdi oilS ssecN.ehn aardvgoG.zee i neeH seiasl tChoCra1pr3.eF0, A. p p'x 15116,(2 4 Ctih2r 0.1( 8")T' hien tolsetraangbdoiavlreidcrnt oiynn'sg t ructivies d isch morset ritnhgtaehn'ne st e [voeprre]er vasstiavnfoedrh'a o rsdwt oirelkne v ircolnamie5mnst. "). Agbtahteir,ce afonrpnero,ot co enace odn stdriuscctthihavereoAg ryce.c ordtihCneog uwlriytl, l dismCiosuTsnht rw eiept rhe judice. 4.CouFnotu Rre:t aliation InC ouFnotuA rg,ba altlite hgVaeDtsA CrSe taalgiaahitineamsdft t he erfi lheidAs p ril,

201g8r ievTaosn tcaaer t.ee t aclliaaaitp mil,oa nim nutspitlff efa acdst hso w"i(nelgn) g agement ianp rotaecctti(ev2dai) dt vyee;rm spel oaycmteainnot(dn 3a ;c) a ulsiabnlek t wtehpeern o tected

5 Inde"emde,dr ies satwiistwfahoc rtakis osni gnamfe eenltiosnfb,g e iunngfa irly critiocrdi izffiecoduru,l n tp lewaosrakcniotnn gd iatrnieoo stnou s n pleaasts oca onmtpa e l reasopneartbsroloe ens iHgeniv.kC."oo loSmabvoiB nagnF.skS ,. 4B3.F4,. 234d29 6,(24 Ctihr . 2006")E.vy eenl lpiunbcglh,ia cs tiasnefodmr ecnwetodsru ,kn duenrs caofen dictainonnost supp[coaor nts tdriusccthcialvraegiK eme].n v"iS.o ka nn sUkaS BAl dIgn.Nc,o. R.,D B-18-3344, 201W9L 4 393a2t9* 61(,1D M.d S.e p1t32.,0 19A)g.b aatlil'esg oaf"t wioornksp lace discoamnfoidrn tesq utirteaab"til mdede, on n toq,tu aalsi" fyo bjeicnttiovleweloryra kbilneg" condittsoiu opnapcs oo rnts tdriuscctchilavareig me. activity and the employment action.” Coleman vy. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), affd sub nom. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30 (2012). Adverse employment actions may involve “discharge, demotion, decrease in pay or benefits, loss of job title or supervisory responsibility, or reduced opportunities for promotion.” Boone v. Goldin, 178 F.3d 253, 255 (4th Cir. 1999). VDACS argues that Agbati fails to plead facts showing that he suffered any adverse employment action. Agbati asserts that he was “completely outcast[ed]” after he filed his grievance. (Dk. No. 3, at 8.) To qualify as an adverse employment action, “an employer’s conduct must be ‘so materially adverse as to dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.”” Michael v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., No. 3:18cv125, 2018 WL 3631888, at *3 (E.D. Va. July 31, 2018) (quoting Hinton v. Va. Union Univ., 185 F. Supp. 3d 807, 831 (E.D. Va. 2016)). Agbati does not explain how he was “completely outcast[ed]” or what actions led to his feelings of being ostracized. Agbati simply pleads no facts showing that his “treatment at work changed dramatically” after he filed his grievance. Bryant v. Aiken Reg’l Med. Ctrs., Inc., 333 F.3d 536, 544 (4th Cir. 2003). Moreover, his allegations of hostile behavior by his supervisor and coworker all appear to predate his April, 2018 grievance. 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 Four.’ Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count Four without prejudice.’

6 Should Agbati continue to rely on his assertion that he was “completely outcast[ed]” after he filed his grievance, his amended complaint must allege facts that more precisely explain what happened and when it happened. 7 Agbati also appears to argue that his decision to resign qualifies as a retaliatory adverse employment action under a constructive discharge theory. “Constructive discharge may serve as the adverse employment action in a Title VII retaliation claim.” Bailey v. Va. Dep’t of Alcoholic

5.CouFnitvP eaD:yi scrimination InC ouFnitvA eg,ba astsiae p ratdysi scricmliauninamdtT eiirotV nlI eIT .os taap taey discricmliauninamdTt eiirVto IlnaIe p , l aimnutpsiltffe fa acdst hso w"itn(h1g a[) th i easm] e mber ofap rotcelca(ts2e[s)dh; we a]ps a liedts hsaa nen m ploouytetsehi cedl eaa sn(sd3;t ) hh ei gher paeimdp lwoaypsee er forams iunbgs tsainmtjiiolabalK.rle" ysv M s.u nE.m pCsr.e Udniitoo fn

BaiItn.3c,1.F 9,2. d6 3674,(4 .D M d2.0 0A4g)b.ga etnie arsasltelhrywat htsie tmep loayte es V DACSe arnm oren otnhwaehnmi ptleo yees. Wheanp lai"nbtais[ffeh [aisls]l] e g'actoimopunlpseoa tcn eo lmyp atraoin es mopnl oyee froamn on-prcoltaescstt[hve,ead] l io.d[f.ih .cti lysa diemp]eu npdowsnh etthhceaortm parator iisn dseiemdi sliatrulaLyta ewdr.ve"G.n'l c oeLb ianlg SuoiLlsLstCN ,o1 .: 13c2v011W23L0 7, 6729a2*t64 (6 E,. VDa.D. e 1c9.2, 0 1(3q)u oHtaiynwgo odv3.8F 7.L oAc3pk5pe35',5,x( 9 4 th Ci2r0.1 (0p)ce urr )i.aA pm l)a imnutspitlff efa acdts sh owintghc eot mhpaatr atwoirtsh "de thsea mseu per[vwiessruoebr]tj, toe h cseta mset andaanr.dd.e s.n[ g,ai]gtn eh sdea mceo nduct withsouudctih ff ereonrmt iitaitgciaintrgic nugmt shtwaaotnu dcliedss t itnhgceuoiinrsd hu ct or theem plotyreera'otsftm heefonmrti tI.d".

BeveCroangtNero 2o.:l 1,8 c2v031W99L12 ,2 39a0*t37( , E .VDaJ..a 7n2,.0 1A9" )r.e taliato constdriuscctchilavare"hig omew, e"vreerq,'u siormeesmt ohrtiehn'aag cn t iorneatballei atio ShevtH.tya mpUtnoinNv o4..:, 1 2c2v0l1W54L82 ,8 04a4(t8E ,.V DaJ..a 2n4.2, 0 1(4a)d opting repaonrrdte commenAdp altaiimonuntsp)itl.ff efa acdst hso w"i(nt1gh)d e e libeorf[at theen ess defendaacnttim'oosnt]si b,vy a[ tdeids cribmiianands(a ,2tt )hoo erb yj]ei cnttiovleoe tfrh aeb ilit workcionngd iFtrieoen7ms5a.F0n"3. , da 4 t2 5A.st hCeo uhraetsx plaAignbeaadtl,il 'esg ation don omte etth" eo bjeicnttiovle"es rtaabnidMlaroidrt.ey oanvyer re,t alcioantsotrryu ctiv discchlaarwigomeufa libdle caAugsbceaa tnisn hooatcw a ulsiabnlek t wfieleihnnig gsr ievance anhdi rse sigonnayete liaaortn Se urc".hal engttilhmayep .s.ne.e gaatnieyns fe rtehnaac te caucsoanln eecxtibiseottnsw t ehteewn o D.o"w ve.T otalA gAacitPniosovtnei rnRty o anoke Val1l4eF5y3. ,d6 536,5( 74 Ctih1r 9.9 8A)c.c ordAignbgcalatyni,sn toaat"t ree taliato constdriuscct"hci alvraebgi aemso enhd ir se signation. Agbdaoteniso p to itnoat nc yo mpatrosa utpophroi prsat dy i scricmlianTiahmte.i on exhiabtittatsco Ah gebda ctoim'psla apipntetoas rh ohwic so worskaelrasbr'uiw tea sg,e discricmlianuianmtdsTie iortVn lI reIe qpuliarietn potl iefaffacsdt s sthhoaacw toi mnpga rator perfor"mseudb steaqnuwtaoilra kSl.pl"ey n vc.Ve aSr.t aUtnei9 v1.F93,. d 1 9290,(7 4 Ctihr . 201I9)n.d epelda,im nutspitlff esfaa cdts sh owtihncagot m paoruatttsohirpedsr e o tcelcatsesd "dewailttthhs e a mseu per[vwiessrouerb]t,j ot eh cseta mset andaanr.dd. es.n[ g,a]ig nte hde

samceo ndwuictths ouducithff ereonmrti itaitcgiianrtgci unmgts hwtaoatnu dcliedss t inguish condoutrch te employoetfrh 'efosmri ttL.ra"ew arte2mn0ec1Wne3L6t, 7 29a2*t64 B6.e, c ause Agbfaaittliios d enact oimfyp aororat thoerpr lweitashadeac to mpapreartfoorsrmu ebds tantial equwaolrh kefa, i tlsost aap tlea upsaidybi lsec ricmlianiamt.i on Nonethteogl ieAvsgesb ,aa nto ip porttuocn oimtpwyli ytt hhpe l easdtianngtd haer d, Couwritgl rlaA ngtbl aetativfio el a ena mencdoemdp alsta Coio nutFn it8v Aec.c ordtihneg ly, Couwritdl ils mCiosuFsni twv iet hporuetj udice. B.CouSnixtV: H RAC la9im ICno uSnitAx g,b aastsiaed ritssc ricmliauninamdtt eihVroeH n R AT.hV eH RpAr ohibits emplowyietmrhos rt eh fiavnbe u fetw etrh fiaftne eemnp lofryoemde iss criamgianiantsitn g

emplobyaesoeenpsd r otcehcatreadc SteeVeraC i.os §dt2 ei.c2s-.3 9T0hV3eH( R8"A)p .r ovides

8T hCeo ucratu tAigobtnahstaa "i tfo rmurleaciiocttf ah eteli eomnoe afnc tasuo safec tion winloldt o .T"w om5b5lU0y. ,aS 5t.5 5T.h uAsg,b mautsiitd e nact oimfyp aanrdma utspoltre ad sufficfaicettnsotr enhdiecsrl apilma utshihabitlg eh er-paid "wwheairctete u aelmlpyl o simisliatrulCayot leed6m.2a"F6 n. ,a3 1td9 1. 9V DACSm ovtedodi smAigsbsaV tHiR'cAsl afoirlm a ocfsk u bmjaetcjttue rri sdicti purstuoFa endteR rualolefC ivPirlo ce1d2u(rbe)B (utlth) ge.r oufonrdd iss mciosnscaelrn whetAhgebsrat taiact leasui nmdt ehVreH RAA.c cordtihCneog uwlriydtl,e l c tihmdeoe t aiso n toA gbaVtHiR'cAsl auinmdR eurl1 e2 (br)a(tt6hh)eRa run l 1e2 (b)S(eRleo) s.e -Svt.a nley VirgiNnoi2.a: ,1 52c0v1W75L,6 756a9*t13 n0 .,(1 W .VDa.N. o v52.,0 15). protection against discrimination that federal laws do not cover.” Michael, 2018 WL 3631888, at

Agbati does not allege that VDACS employs fewer than fifteen employees. In fact, VDACS employs well over fifteen employees. See Richardson v. Prince William Cty., No. 1:17cv761, 2018 WL 548666, at *3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2018) (taking judicial notice that the defendant employs more than fifteen employees and dismissing the plaintiff's VHRA claim). Because Agbati does not and cannot plead that VDACS has the requisite number of employees to state a claim under the VHRA, the Court will dismiss Count Six with prejudice. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss. The Court will deny the motion as to Agbati’s failure to promote claim under Title VII. The Court will grant the motion as to Agbati’s remaining claims. The Court, however, will grant Agbati leave to file an amended complaint as to his retaliation and pay discrimination claims. The Court will issue an appropriate Order. Let the Clerk send a copy of this Opinion to all counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff.

Date: iT October 2022 Richmond, VA John A. Gibney, Jr. Senior United States Distri¢t Judge

1]

Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Pincite

Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Agbati v. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related