Carter v. Va. Dep't of Game & Inland Fisheries

5 Citing cases

  1. McCarty v. City of Alexandria

    Civil Action 1:24-cv-600 (RDA/IDD) (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2024)

    Although the treatment of others may inform a hostile work environment claim and may assist in demonstrating that a work environment was objectively hostile, a plaintiff must still establish that she suffered from a work environment that changed her terms and conditions of employment. See Carter v. Virginia Dep't of Game & Inland Fisheries, 2017 WL 4413192, at *15 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017) (“Ms. Easter's contention that she observed others experiencing hostile acts does not, as alleged, plausibly assert a hostile work environment claim on her own behalf.”); see also Robinson v. Prince William-Manassas Reg'l Adult Det. Ctr., 2022 WL 17085916, at *3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2022).

  2. McCaffery v. Fairfax Cnty.

    Civil Action 1:23-cv-965 (RDA/JFA) (E.D. Va. Sep. 4, 2024)

    may assist in demonstrating that the work environment was objectively sexually hostile,these incidents do not indicate that Plaintiff personally experienced similar harassment in her work environment. Carter v. Virginia Dep't of Game & Inland Fisheries, No. 3:16-cv-661, 2017 WL 4413192, at *15 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017) (“Ms. Easter's contention that she observed others experiencing hostile acts does not, as alleged, plausibly assert a hostile work environment claim on her own behalf.”)

  3. Pitts-Brown v. Renal Treatment Centers-Mid Atl., Inc.

    Civil Action 2:21-cv-232 (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2022)

    A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) ... does not resolve .. .the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.'” Carter v. Va. Dep't of Game and Inland Fisheries, No. 3:16cv661, 2017 WL 4413192, at *9-10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017) (quoting Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).

  4. Koonce v. Austin

    Civil Action 3:21cv660 (E.D. Va. Jul. 28, 2022)

    The plaintiff still must allege facts, however, that establish “‘a right to relief above the speculative level' that an employee suffered an adverse employment action because of the employee's membership in a protected class.” Carter v. Va. Dep't of Game and Inland Fisheries, No. 3:16cv661, 2017 WL 4413192, at *11 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017) (quoting Coleman, 626 F.3d at 190)). The elements of a retaliation claim require the plaintiff to show that: (1) the plaintiff “engaged in a protected activity”; (2) the employer “took an adverse action against [him]”; and (3) “a causal relationship existed between the employee's protected activity and the employer's adverse action.

  5. Lee v. Mattis

    Civil Action No. PX 17-2836 (D. Md. Jul. 17, 2018)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that plaintiff adequately alleged that she was treated different from similarly situated employees outside her protected class

    HJF correctly argues that mere refusal to allow telecommuting is not actionable under Title VII. See, e.g. Carter v. Va. Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries, No. 3:16cv661, 2017 WL 4413192, at *13 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017). However, Lee avers much more.