MARTINSBURG — A report and recommendation was filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble in a lawsuit against the Department of Veteran Affairs recommending the dismissal of the complaint.
On July 8, Trumble recommended the amended complaint and second amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice and for two of the plaintiff's motions to be denied as moot.
"After review, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because plaintiff fails to 'allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of her claim,'" Trumble wrote. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer 'to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'"
Trumble wrote that when evaluating a plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims, absent direct evidence of discrimination, courts apply the burden-shifting framework set forth in a previous case from 1973 known as the McDonnell Douglas framework.
"The McDonnell Douglas framework imposes on a plaintiff the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination," he wrote. "Once that prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for its action."
Trumble wrote that the plaintiff did not allege any facts that directly support a claim for racial discrimination and no facts from which a reasonable inference can be made that she was performing her job satisfactorily at the time of her termination.
"There is no information regarding plaintiff’s position, what her work assignments generally were, and whether her supervisors found her job performance satisfactory," Trumble wrote. "Indeed, plaintiff’s allegations suggest that plaintiff’s supervisors did not find plaintiff’s job performance satisfactory because her termination resulted, in part, from accusations that she was disruptive at a unit staff meeting. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to state all the elements of the prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework."
Charleatta M. Black filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia's Martinsburg Division against the Department of Veterans Affairs, claiming that it subjected her as an employee to unfair treatment, causing her to lose her employment.
Black claims on Oct. 10, 2015, she was not working her per-contract shift of employment because she was covering another employee's shift. She claims she was assigned to leave her own overtime post by another employee without being informed that the chief of nursing had issued a memo stating the unit policy on work assignments had changed. As a result, Black claims she was fired on the eve of her probation being over and her change to full-time, permanent employee status.
She holds the Department of Veterans Affairs responsible because it allegedly failed to provide her the chance to redeem herself by investigating the incident and overlooked compelling testimonial evidence statements given by hand in writing from other employees that her termination was done in a discriminatory manner.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for punitive damages, attorney's fees and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia case number 3:18-cv-00193
