Where a postal employee alleged she was twice transferred to “less favorable” positions because of her religious beliefs, she stated a plausible claim for failure to accommodate her religious beliefs.
Background
Avala Rose is an employee of the United States Postal Service, or USPS. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated Title VII by harassing and retaliating against her because of her religious beliefs, her request for reasonable religious accommodations and her accusations of harassment and discrimination against USPS. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.
Failure to accommodate
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim should be dismissed because she never alleges that she was disciplined for her religious observation. The court disagrees.
Plaintiff states that, in the course of observing her religious belief, she “was assigned to a less favorable position at the West[h]ampton Post Office.” Plaintiff was later re-assigned to the Sandston Post Office. These types of transfers and reassignments are likely to be considered adverse employment actions due to the fact that their “impact on the terms and conditions of employment is immediate and apparent.”
Furthermore, the re-assignments in this case align with the time period in which plaintiff was participating in her protected activity. Temporal proximity is indicative of an adverse employment action. The court finds that plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for defendant’s failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. Thus, the court declines to dismiss Count One.
Harassment
It appears that plaintiff brings a hostile work environment claim for both the alleged sexual and religious harassment. However, plaintiff has failed to show that the harassment she faced at USPS was severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment.
For each of these claims, plaintiff only provides one instance of harassment. She states that defendant made “offensive and unwelcom[e] sexual comments” on Oct. 26, 2022, and “offensive religious comments” on Sept. 2, 2022. An isolated incident is not enough to establish the requisite level of severity or pervasiveness unless that incident is extremely serious.
Because plaintiff fails to provide specific details about either incident, the court is unable to evaluate their severity. There simply is not enough alleged in the second amended complaint to show that these two incidents involving offensive comments are sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment. Thus, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that the harassment is severe or pervasive, and the Court will dismiss Counts Two, Three and Five.
Retaliation
Plaintiff must show “beyond [a] speculative level that ‘(1) [s]he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer acted adversely against [her]; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action.’” Here, plaintiff makes the necessary causal connection between the actions she perceives as retaliatory and her request for religious accommodations and subsequent complaints of harassment and discrimination.
First, plaintiff alleges that defendant knew of her protected activities because she submitted her harassment complaint to him in August 2022. After this complaint, plaintiff alleges that multiple retaliatory actions were taken against her by defendant, including blowing an airhorn in her ear, isolating her and excluding her from meetings. Thus, plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded Counts Four, Six and Seven, and the court will not dismiss them.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.
Rose v. DeJoy, Case No. 3:23-cv-405, Aug. 16, 2024. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 024-3-428. 10 pp.
