Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
DI
V.
ORDER
of
of
is
iti
n.
plaintiffs
ll
plaintiffs
's
is
in
pros
e,
in
of
ll
of
of
§§
Amer
of
19
§§
21
q.
in
ll
of
li
ll
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
1
of
10
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
STRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
NORTH
CAROLINA
SOUTHERN
DIVISION
No.
7:25-CV-726-BO-RN
REKETTA
L.
MONTGOMERY
,
)
)
Plaintiff
,
)
)
)
)
ACQU
I
SIT
IO
N
EX
P
ERTS
,
LLC
,
)
)
Defendant.
)
This
ca
u
se
co
m
es
before
the
Co
urt
on
d
efenda
nt
'
s
motion
to
di
sm
i
ss
the
comp
l
a
int
pursuant
to
Rule
1
2(b)(6)
th
e
Fe
d
era
l
Rule
s
Civi
l
P
roce
dur
e.
P
l
aintiff
h
as
r
espo
nd
ed
,
defendant
has
replied
,
and
the
motion
ripe
fo
r
di
spos
o
A
l
so
pending
and
ripe
for
di
spos
iti
on
i
s
motion
t
o
amend
her
oppos
iti
on
to
the
m
otion
t
o
dismis
s
.
For
the
reasons
that
fo
ow
,
motion
to
amend
is
d
enied
and
defendant
motion
to
dismiss
granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
,
w
h
o
proceeds
this
action
filed
a
comp
l
aint
against
defendant
on
May
1
,
2025
,
alleg
g c
l
a
im
s
emp
l
oyment
di
s
c
rimin
at
i
on
,
specifica
y
bring
i
ng
c
l
aims
und
er
Title
Vil
the
C
i
vi
l
Rights
Act
196
4
(T
itl
e V
II)
,
42
U.S.C.
2000e
,
et
seq.,
and
the
i
cans
with
Disabilities
Act
90
(ADA)
,
42
U.S.C.
1
1
2
,
et
s
e
[DE
1
]
.
Plaintiff
alleges
that
d
efenda
nt
discriminated
against
h
e
r
by
terminating
h
er
emp
l
oyme
nt
,
fai
lin
g
to
p
romote
h
er
,
fai
lin
g
to
acco
mmod
ate
h
e
r
disability
,
b
y
retaliating
aga
st
her
,
and
for
ap
pl
y
in
g
un
eq
ual
terms
and
cond
ition
s
to
h
er
e
mpl
oy
m
ent.
Plaintiff
a
eges
that
defendant
e
n
gage
d i
n
th
ese
discriminatory
actions
on
the
basis
her
race
,
sex
,
a
nd
disabi
ty.
Plaintiff
also
a
eges
th
at
s
h
e
was
s
ubj
ected
to
in
in
of
ll
pl
ff
li
id
ti
ff
ff
of
pl
ff
OR
bl
pl
's
in
Pl
ff
ll
id
pl
in
ti
in
id
ff
fl
rn
pl
of
off
ff
:3
rn
s,
in
ll
in
fl
ni
ff
of
ll
il
ll
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
2
of
10
a h
os
til
e w
ork
e
nvironm
e
nt
du
e
t
o
bull
y
g,
h
a
ra
ss
g
and
v
e
rb
a
l
ly
a
bu
s
i
ve
phon
e c
all
s,
mi
cro
man
age
m
e
nt
,
communi
ca
tion
co
nfli
c
t
s,
and
l
ac
k
int
eg
rit
y
b
y
h
e
r
s
up
e
rvi
sor
o
r m
a
n
ager.
Pl
a
intiff
a
eges
th
a
t
s
h
e
i
s a
di
s
abl
e
d
,
r
e
ti
re
d
U.S.
A
ir
Fo
r
ce
ve
t
e
ran
w
ith
100
%
se
r
v
i
ce-
co
nn
ec
t
e
d
di
sa
biliti
es.
On
A
u
g
u
s
t 4
,
2
0
23,
a
inti
was
hir
e
d b
y
d
efe
ndant
as
a
co
n
trac
t
spec
i
a
s
t
t
o
p
rov
e
co
nt
rac
t
s
upp
o
rt
a
nd
a
dmini
s
t
ra
o
n
at
th
e
Ma
rin
e
Co
rp
s
In
s
t
a
llati
o
n
Co
mm
a
nd
-
Eas
t
(MC
I
East)
a
t
Ca
mp
L
eje
un
e.
P
l
a
inti
was
a
l
so
as
k
e
d b
y
d
efe
nd
a
nt
t
o
t
e
mp
ora
ril
y
se
rv
e
as
ac
t
i
n
g
p
rojec
t m
a
n
ager.
P
l
a
inti
b
ega
n w
o
rk
o
n
Se
pt
e
mb
e
r 1
8,
2
0
23.
O
n h
e
r
fir
s
t d
ay
wo
rk
,
a
inti
n
o
tifi
e
d
th
e C
ontr
ac
tin
g
Offi
ce
r R
e
pr
ese
nt
a
tiv
e
(C
OR
)
that
s
h
e
had
m
e
dical
a
pp
o
intm
e
nt
s a
t
t
h
e
V
A
pr
e
vi
o
u
s
l
y
sc
h
e
dul
e
d
th
a
t
s
h
e
w
o
u
l
d n
ee
d
to
a
tt
e
nd
a
nd
th
e C
t
o
l
d h
e
r
that
s
hould
n
o
t b
e a
p
ro
e
m.
T
h
e
CO
R
th
e
n r
e
qu
es
t
e
d
th
a
t
a
n
e
mail
a
pp
rova
l
o
f
a
inti
ff's
r
e
qu
es
t b
e
se
nt
b
y S
t
eve
n
Willi
a
m
s,
d
efe
nd
a
nt
m
a
n
ag
g
m
e
mb
er.
a
inti
a
eges
that
fro
m
Se
pt
e
mb
e
r
14
t
h
ro
u
g
h
O
cto
b
e
r
5,
2
0
23,
Willi
a
m
s
avo
e
d
o
r
ig
n
o
r
e
d
a
t
i
f
f
s
p
e
r
s
i
ste
nt
r
eq
u
es
t
s
fo
r r
easo
n
a
bl
e
acco
mm
o
d
a
o
n b
y
r
e
fu
s
g
to
c
ommuni
cate
with
h
e
r
o
r p
rov
e c
l
a
rifi
ca
ti
o
n
.
P
l
a
inti
so
u
g
ht
exi
bl
e
sta
rt
tim
es
a
nd
t
h
e o
pti
o
n t
o
wo
rk
fr
o
m b
o
e w
h
e
n h
er
sy
mpt
o
m
s
we
r
e
seve
r
e.
On
Se
pt
e
mb
e
r
29,
2
0
23,
Willi
a
m
s a
ppro
ve
d
a
intiff
fo
r
s
i
x
t
ee
n h
o
ur
s
paid
t
im
e
b
o
nu
s
to
acc
omm
o
dat
e
h
e
r
sc
h
e
du
l
e
d
a
pp
o
intm
e
nt
s,
bu
t
t
o
l
d
pl
a
inti
s
h
e
was
oth
e
rwi
se
r
e
quir
e
d
t
o
wo
rk
fr
o
m 7
0 a
.
.
t
o
4:
3
0
p.rn
.
eac
h d
ay,
M
o
nda
y
throu
g
h
F
rid
ay.
Pl
a
intiff
h
a
d
und
e
r
s
t
oo
d
th
a
t
s
h
e
wo
uld
b
e a
ble
t
o
d
e
t
e
rmin
e
h
e
r
ow
n w
o
rk
h
o
ur
c
ludin
g
fo
o
w
g a
n
a
ltern
a
t
e
wo
rk
sc
h
e
dul
e
,
but
h
e
r r
e
qu
es
t
fo
r
a
ex
ibl
e
sc
h
e
dul
e
t
o
acco
mm
o
d
a
t
e
h
e
r
VA
app
o
intm
e
nt
s
was
d
e
e
d.
On
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
5,
2
0
23,
pl
a
inti
r
ece
i
ve
d a l
e
tt
e
r
re
prim
a
nd
a
nd
d
e
m
o
tion
.
S
h
e a
eges
s
h
e
was
s
ubj
ec
t
e
d t
o
rud
e a
nd
di
s
r
es
p
ec
tful
b
e
h
av
ior
b
y
Willi
a
m
s a
nd
th
a
t
the
wo
rk
e
n
v
ironm
e
nt
was
h
ost
e
.
On
O
c
t
o
b
e
r 9
,
2
0
23,
plaintiff
s
ubmitt
e
d h
e
r r
esig
nati
o
n
. S
h
e a
e
ges
s
h
e
fe
l
t
s
h
e
had
n
o
2
pl
fi
I.
iff
to
id
pl
f's
in
in
in
id
pa
fu
ll
er
f's
ff
in
in
ti
in
in
fi
in
pl
in
or
in
of
in
ll
in
in
ow
in
li
plaintiffs
ot
in
of
iv
il
in
11
111
11
01
f's
in
ni
id
nl
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
3
of
10
other
c
h
oice
but
to
re
s
i
g
n
.
On
March
4
,
2024,
a
intiff
l
e
d
a c
har
ge
o
f
di
scr
imin
a
tion
w
ith
the
E
qu
a
l
Opp
o
rtunit
y E
mpl
oy
m
e
nt
Com
mi
ssio
n (
EEOC).
DISCUSSION
Pla
int
'
s
motion
for
leave
to
amend
h
er
opposition
the
motion
to
dismiss
The
Co
urt
co
n
s
ers
first
a
intif
motion
fo
r l
eave
t
o a
m
e
nd
h
e
r
response
opposition
to
the
m
ot
i
o
n t
o
dismiss
.
P
l
aintiff
argues
that
s
ce
s
h
e
filed
h
er
memorandum
oppos
iti
on
to
the
m
otio
n t
o
dismiss
s
h
e
h
as
e
ntifi
e
d
formatting
a
nd
st
ructural
i
ss
u
es
that
imp
ac
ted
c
l
arity,
exceede
d
wor
d
and
ge
limit
s
,
and
did
n
ot
y
reflect
h
r
ev
i
se
d
arg
um
ent.
De
fe
ndant
op
p
oses
plaintiff'
s
motion
for
l
eave.
Pl
a
intif
moti
on
i
s
denied.
P
l
a
inti
fir
s
t
filed
a
time
l
y
memorandum
oppos
i
tion
to
the
m
otio
n t
o
dismiss.
[D
E
19).
W
ith
o
ut
seeki
n
g
l
eave
to
do
so,
plaintiff
then
s
ubmitt
e
d
a
second
memorandum
op
p
os
iti
o
n
to
th
e
m
o
on
to
di
sm
i
ss.
[DE
20
]
.
Plaintiff
then
filed
the
stant
m
ot
i
on,
seek
g
leave
to
l
e
a
third
memorandum
oppos
iti
on.
As
identified
b
y
defendant,
a
intiff
ha
s
c
lud
ed
numerous
fictitious
fake
case
citations
both
her
filed
m
emora
ndum
s
o
pp
os
ition
as
we
as
h
e
r
prop
ose
d
third
memorandum
opposition.
See
[D
E
22).
Plaintiff
contends
that
s
h
e
did
not
kn
g
l
y c
it
e
t
o a
n
y
fictitious
o
r
fake
l
ega
l
authorities
a
nd
r
e
ed
on
digital
research
to
o
l
s
t
o
assist
h
er.
[DE
24
).
H
owever,
pro
se
stat
u
s
does
n
exc
u
se
h
e
r
fro
m
comp
l
y
g
with
th
e
Federa
l
Rul
es
C
Pro
ced
ure
,
c
ludin
g
Rule
.
S
e
e
In
re
Weiss,
F.3
d
59
,
1170
(4th
C
ir.
1997)
;
Chi
l
ove
C
h
ery
Saimplice
v
.
Ocwen
Loan
Servicing
,
Inc.,
368
F.
Su
pp
.
3d
858
,
865
(E.D.N.C.
2
9).
Pl
a
intif
moti
o
n
fails
to
esta
bli
s
h
goo
d
ca
u
se
for
gra
ntin
g
l
eave
to
a
m
e
nd
h
e
r r
espo
n
se
opposition
to
the
moti
on
t
o
di
s
mi
ss.
T
h
e
motion
i
s
therefore
d
e
e
d
. T
h
e
Court
will
co
n
s
e
r
o
y
plaintiff'
s
first
r
es
pon
se
to
th
e
moti
o
n
to
di
s
mis
s.
[D
E
1
9
]
.
3
to
of
v.
ld
in
li
Inc.
v.
r.
ll
v.
[]
li
of
of
of
if
plaintiffs
in
or
ex
of
of
plaintiffs
is
v.
551
297,300
Cty.
v.
541
r,
.,
Va
591
ex
in
ll
ll
in
"t
ll
of
or
in
19
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
4
of
10
II.
Motion
dismiss
A
Rule
1
2(b)(6)
motion
tests
the
l
egal
s
uffi
ciency
the
complai
nt.
Papasan
Allain
,
478
U.S
.
265
,
283
(1986).
When
acting
on
a
motion
to
dismi
s
s
und
er
Rule
12(b)(6)
, "
the
court
should
accept
as
true
all
we
ll-pl
eaded
a
lle
gat
i
ons
and
s
h
ou
view
the
comp
l
aint
a
ght
most
favorable
to
the
plaintiff.
"
Mylan
Labs.
,
Matkari
,
7
F.3d
1130
,
1134
(4th
C
i
1993)
.
A
complaint
must
a
ege
enough
facts
to
state
a
claim
for
relief
that
i
s
fac
i
ally
plausible.
Bell
Atlantic
C
orp.
Twombly,
550
U.S.
544
,
570
(200
7)
.
Fac
ial
plausibility
means
that
the
facts
pied
"
allow
the
court
to
draw
the
reasonable
inference
that
the
defendant
i
s
ab
l
e
for
the
misconduct
alleged
,
"
and
mere
recitals
the
elements
a
cause
action
s
upp
orted
by
conclusory
stateme
nt
s
do
not
suffice.
Ash
c
roft
v
.
Iqbal
,
556
U.S.
662
,
678
(2009).
A
comp
laint
must
be
dismissed
th
e
factual
allegations
do
not
nud
ge
the
claims
"
across
the
lin
e
from
conceivable
to
plausible."
Twombly
,
550
U
.
S.
at
570.
Before
filing
s
uit
federa
l
co
urt
under
Title
Vil
the
ADA
,
a
plaintiff
must
fir
st
h
aust
her
adm
ini
strative
remedies
by
filing
a
charge
discrimination
with
the
EEOC,
and
"
the
scope
the
right
to
file
a
federa
l l
aws
uit
determined
by
the
[EEOC]
c
h
a
rge's
contents
."
Jones
C
alvert
Group
,
LTD
.,
F.3d
(4t
h
C
ir
.
2009)
(abrogated
on
ot
her
gro
und
s
by
Fort
B
e
nd
,
Texas
Davis,
587
U.S.
(2019))
;
se
e
also
Walton
v
.
Hark
e
33
F.4t
h
165
,
172
(4th
Cir.
2022);
Sydnor
v
.
Fairfax
Cty
.,
68
1
F.3d
,
593
(4th
Cir.
20
1
2)
(ADA
incorporates
Title
Vll
'
s e
nfor
ce
ment
pro
ced
ure
s,
inc
l
uding
requirement
that
plaintiff
ex
hau
st
administrative
remedies
by
filing
c
har
ge
with
EEOC).
In
determining
whether
s
h
e
h
austed
her
c
laim
s
,
we
g
i
ve
[plaintiff]
credit
for
charges
stated
her
ad
mini
strative
charging
document
,
as
we
a
s "
c
h
arges
that
would
natura
y
have
ar
i
se
n
from
an
investigation
thereof.
"
But
when
the
clai
m
s
her
co
urt
comp
l
aint
are
broader
than
h
e a
egation
a
discrete
act
acts
[th
e]
administrative
charge
,"
they
are
procedurally
barred.
Parker
v
.
Reema
Consulting
Servs.,
Inc
.,
915
F.3d
297
,
306
(4th
C
ir.
20
).
4
di
in
er
1-
Plaintiff
of
er
Plaintiffs
plaintiffs
of
of
li
in
.,
,384
Nor
pl
Plaintiffs
in
er
in
ll
in
il
id
er
Bond
pl
if
fs
er
ADA
of
ll
of
of
v.
Dep
't
plaintiffs
v.
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
5
of
10
Here
,
plaintiff
identified
her
race
and
sabi
lit
y
as
bases
for
discrimination
h
EEOC
1
charge.
[D
E
3].
s
narrative
description
the
grounds
for
h
c
har
ge
do
not
include
any
reference
to
her
sex.
Title
VII
sex
discrimination
c
l
aims
are
n
on-ex
h
austed
and
thus
procedurally
barred.
So
too
are
retaliation
c
l
aims
and
h
e
r
fa
ilur
e
to
promote
c
l
a
im
under
both
Title
VII
and
the
ADA.
Plaintiff
makes
n
o
mention
retaliation
as
a
form
d
i
scriminat
ion
,
and
she
did
not
mention
reta
ation
her
n
arrat
i
ve
statement.
S
ee
Cowgill
v
.
First
Data
T
e
chs
Inc.
,
4
1
F.4th
3
70
(4th
C
ir.
2022).
does
aint
iff
identify
a
n
y
promotion
fo
r
which
s
h
e
applied
or
any
opportun
i
ty
for
which
she
was
not
selected.
narrative
discussion
h
c
h
arge
di
scusses
her
alleged
demotion
,
but
demotion
i
s
distinct from
failure
to
promot
e.
See
Walton
,
33
F.4th
at
173
.
A
lthou
gh
defendant
argues
that
plaintiff
has
failed
to
ex
h
aust
her
ho
stile
work
enviro
nm
ent
c
l
aim
,
plaintiff
does
mention
being
subjected
to
a
h
osti
l
e
wo
r
k
env
i
ro
nm
ent
her
EEOC
nar
rat
i
ve
sta
tem
e
nt
and
identifies
the
person
s
h
e a
eges
engaged
h
ost
e
cond
uct
,
and
the
Court
will
thus
cons
er
this
cla
im
ex
h
a
u
sted
und
these
c
ircum
stances.
Se
e
s
v
.
Leavitt
,
629
F.3d
369
,
379
(4t
h
C
ir.
2011)
(
notin
g
that
because
EEOC
charges
are
typically
not
drafted
by
attorneys
,
co
urt
s s
hould
construe
th
em
lib
era
l
l
y).
This
l
eaves
aint
c
laim
s
for
wrongfu
l
termination
,
disparate
treatment,
and
hostile
work
environment
und
Title
VII
and
the
and
her
ADA
failure
to
accommodate
c
l
aim.
While
a
plaintiff
does
not
need
pro
ve
a
prima
fac
i
e
case
a
discriminat
io
n
claim
to
surv
i
ve
a
motion
to
dismiss
,
s
h
e
must
nonetheless
"
a
ege
facts
to
sat
i
sfy
the
ele
m
e
nt
s
a
ca
u
se
action
created
by
[the]
stat
ut
e[.]"
McCleary-Evans
Maryland
ofTransp.,
State
Highway
Admin.
,
1
The
Court
may
consider
EEOC
charge
and
other
documents
s
h
e
attac
h
ed
to
her
comp
laint
wi
th
out
converting
the
motion
to
o
n
e
for
sum
mar
y
judgment.
Goines
Valley
C
mty.
Servs.
Bd.
,
822
F.3
d
159
,
166
(4
th
Cir.
2016).
5
v.
f[h
ga
of
ll
ce
(0.
plaintiff
ll
ll
bl
ri
ri
ef
ll
of
hi
plaintiffs
Se
1]
in
li
ll
or
li
ti
",
rd
of
tiff
in
of
er
ot
il
intiff
ll
ll
of
rd
ll
in
bl
lu
ll
uff
hi
ow
li
v.
c.
Nor
ll
pl
in
li
or
li
v.
F.
ll
in
of
ffs
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
6
of
10
780
F.3
d
582
,
585
(4th
C
ir.
20
1
5);
see
a
l
so
Wicomico
N
ursi
n
g
Home
Padilla
,
9
1
0
F.3
d
739
,
751
(4th
C
ir.
20
18).
A
dditi
o
nall
y
, "
r
efe
r
e
n
ce
to
the
e
l
e
m
e
nt
s o
er
]
c
l
a
im[
s
]
i
s
h
e
lp
ful
to
u
ge
the
s
u
ffic
i
e
n
cy
th
e a
egations
."
Gaines
v
.
Ba
ll
.
Po
li
Dep
'
t
,
657
F.S
upp
.3
d
708
,
734
Md.
2023)
.
As
to
eac
h
s
A
DA
c
laim
s
,
plaintiff
h
as
fai
l
e
d t
o
pla
u
s
ibl
y
a
ege
that
s
h
e
i
s
a
qualified
individua
l
w
ith
a
disabi
lit
y.
Pl
a
intiff
a
eges
th
at
s
h
e
i
s a
r
etire
d
di
sa
ed
vetera
n
a
nd
that
s
h
e
ex
p
e
e
n
ced
a
n
xiety
and
uncertainty
,
migraines
,
g
and
sa
dn
ess,
as
we
as
s
tr
ess
du
e
to
Williams
'
la
ck
communicatio
n
,
w
c
h
triggered
P
ost
Traumat
i
c
St
r
ess
Disorder
(PTSD)
.
e
[D
E
at
5-8.
The
A
D
A
prohibit
s
di
sc
rimin
at
ion
aga
st
qua
fie
d
indi
v
idu
a
l
s
with
a
di
sab
ilit
y
,
a
nd
it
defines
a
di
sabi
lit
y
as
a
"
physical
or
m
e
ntal
impairm
e
nt
th
at
s
ub
sta
nti
a
y
limi
ts
o
n
e o
r
m
o
r
e
m
a
j
fe
ac
v
iti
es
"
r
eco
s
u
ch
imp
a
irm
e
nt
",
o
r
"
being
r
ega
rd
ed
as
h
aving
s
u
c
h
imp
a
irm
ent.
"
42
U.S.C.
§
1
2
10
2(
1
)(
A).
"
To
s
urvi
ve
a
Motion
t
o
Di
s
mi
ss
,
th
e
p
l
a
in
mu
st
exp
l
a
ho
w t
h
e
alleged
di
sa
bili
ty
m
eets
o
n
e
th
ese
c
rit
i
a;
m
ere
l
y
p
a
rrotin
g
the
stat
utor
y
langua
ge
d
oes
n
s
uffic
e
."
Richardson
v
.
Md.
Transit
Admin
.,
Civ
Act
i
o
n
No.
RDB-18-0884
,
20
1
9
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
32754
,
at
*2
1
-22
(
D
.
Md
.
M
ar.
1
,
20
1
9).
Pl
a
s
a
egat
ion
s
fa
short
the
plau
s
ibili
ty
s
tand
a
. A
eg
g
that
she
i
s
a
di
sa
ed
vetera
n
i
s
co
n
c
sory,
an
d
w
hil
e
plaintiff
has
a
ege
d
that
s
h
e s
e
r
s
from
PTSD
,
she
ha
s
includ
e
d
n
o
fact
u
a
l
e
nhan
ce
m
e
nt
w
c
h
would
s
h
that
s
u
c
h
diag
n
osis
s
ub
sta
nti
al
l
y
mits
a
major
life
activity.
S
ee
Coon
R
ex
Ho
sp.
,
In
,
No.
5:2
0
-CV-
006
52-
M
, 2
0
2
1
WL
3620282
,
at
*8
(E.D.N
.
C.
Aug.
16
,
202
1
).
d
o
p
l
aintiff's
a
egat
i
ons
aus
ibl
y
su
pport
that
her
anxiety,
mi
gra
es
,
or
any
other
co
nditi
o
n
impo
ses
a s
ub
s
tanti
a
l
mitat
i
on
o
n
a
maj
fe
act
i
v
i
ty
,
s
u
c
h
as
wo
rk
.
See
Patterson
McDonald
,
22
0
S
up
p
.
3
d
634
,
638
(M
.
D
.
N
.
C.
20
1
6).
P
l
a
u
s
ibl
y
a
eg
g
that
s
h
e
i
s
a
qua
lifi
ed
indi
vi
dual
w
ith
a
di
sa
bilit
y
i
s
n
ecessa
r
y
for
eac
h
pla
inti
ADA
c
l
aims
.
S
e
e
6
*21
Plaintiffs
of
im
in
of
job
in
il
v.
,207
ul
of
of
plaintiffs
v.
Net
LLC
of
of
in
plaintiffs
of
lo
in
of
of
ll
of
of
pl
of
in
1-
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
7
of
10
Richardson,
20
1
9
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
32754
,
at
(D.
Md
.
Mar.
1
,
2019)
(failure
to
accommodate
,
disparate
treat
m
ent,
and
ho
sti
l
e
work
e
nvi
ro
nm
e
nt
c
laim
s
und
er
ADA
di
sm
i
ssed
w
her
e
plaintiff
failed
to
plausibly
allege
s
h
e
was
a
qualified
individual
wit
h
a
disability).
Title
VII
c
l
a
im
s
are
also
prop
er
l
y
dismissed.
The
e
l
eme
nt
s
a
disparate
2
treatment
c
l
a
under
Title
Vil
a
r
e
membership
a
protected
c
l
ass
,
adve
r
se
employ
ment
action
,
at
the
time
the
adverse
employment
action
the
plaintiff
was
performing
her
a
way
that
met
the
emp
l
oyer
'
s
l
eg
itimat
e
ex
p
ectat
i
o
n
s
,
a
nd
that
plaintiff
was
treated
differently
from
sim
arly
s
itu
ate
d
emp
l
oyees
outside
h
er
protected
class.
Perkin
s
Int
'
/
Pap
e
r
Co.
,
936
F.3d
196
(4th
Cir.
20
1
9).
A
Title
Vil
wrongf
termination
claim
requires
a
plaintiff
to
s
h
ow
the
first
three
e
l
eme
nt
s
a
di
spara
t
e
treatment
claim
,
but
as
th
e
fourth
e
l
e
m
e
nt
th
e
plaintiff
must
s
how
that
the
po
s
ition
from
which
s
h
e
was
terminated
remained
ope
n
or
was
filled
by
a s
imilarl
y
qualified
person
outside
protected
c
la
ss.
S
e
e
Holland
Washington
Homes
,
Inc.
,
487
F.3d
208
,
214
(4th
C
ir.
2007);
see
also
Scott
v
.
Health
Fed.
Serv
s.,
,
463
F
.
App
'
x
206
,
2
08
(4
th
Cir.
2012)
(per
curiam)
(noting
distinction
between
fourth
e
lem
ent
wrongful
termination
and
di
sparate
treatment
claim).
Plaintiff
has
failed
to
plausibly
allege
that
s
h
e s
uffer
ed
an
a
dv
erse
employment
action.
Adverse
emp
l
oyme
nt
act
ion
s
for
purp
oses
Title
Vll
discrimination
c
laim
s
c
lud
e
those
which
h
arm
the
terms
and
co
nditi
ons
emp
yment,
suc
h
as
termination,
demotion
with
decrease
pay
or
ben
efi
t
s,
or
transfer.
S
e
e
Muldrow
v
. C
ity
St.
Lou
i
s
,
Missouri
,
601
U
.
S.
346,
355
(2024)
.
Plaintiff
alleges
that
s
h
e
received
a
l
etter
reprimand
,
but
h
as
n
ot
a
eged
that
the
reprimand
harmed
the
terms
and
conditions
her
employ
ment.
See
Batchelor
v
.
C
ity
Wilson,
747
F.
Supp.
3d
845,
860
(E.D
.
N.C.
2
0
24).
To
the
exte
nt
ai
ntiff
relies
o
n
th
e
removal
h
er
2
Plaintiff's
complaint
does
n
ot
identify
h
er
race,
but
her
EEOC
narrative
s
tat
eme
nt
she
states
that
s
h
e
is
a
"
disabled
black
individual".
[DE
3]
at
I
.
7
or
fo
ll
in
al
of
iti
of
in
ll
of
iffs
Cra1'1iford
v.
of
ajf
of
il
ll
ff
in
ld
ll
of
11
al
of
hi
is
il
d.
iti
ll
in
di
ll
ll
il
is
in
ul
of
in
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
8
of
10
additional
ass
i
g
nm
e
nt
as
project
m
anager
,
h
er
allegations
s
upp
t
that
th
e
project
manager
duties
were
temporary
,
s
h
e
alleges
that
s
h
e
was
not
paid
m
ore
r t
aki
n
g
on
t
h
e
project
ma
na
ger
duti
es
(a
n
d
thus
has
n
ot
a
eged
s
h
e
suffe
r
ed
a
l
oss
pay
w
h
en
t
h
ese
duties
were
removed)
,
and
s
h
e
h
as
n
ot
l
eged
t
h
at
the
removal
project
manager
dut
i
es
ot
h
e
r
wise
h
armed
the
terms
or
cond
ons
her
employment.
F
a
y
,
the
denial
p
l
ai
nt
req
u
est
for
a
four-day
work
week
does
not
amount
to
a
n
adverse
emp
l
oyme
nt
act
i
o
n
.
S
ee
Prince
G
e
orge
'
s
Cnty
.
Bd.
Educ.
,
No
.
CV
J
KB-20-00
04
8
,
2023
WL
2600363
,
a
t
*7
(D.
M
d
.
Mar.
2
1
,
2
0
23)
,
'
d
,
No.
23-
14
30,
2023
WL
642
1010
(4th
C
ir.
Oct.
2
,
2023).
Plaintiff
a
l
so
alleges
that
s
h
e
was
co
n
struct
i
ve
l
y
discharged
,
w
hich
i
s a
for
m
adverse
e
m
p
l
oy
m
ent
actio
n
.
H
owever
,
plaintiff
h
as
fa
ed
to
plausibly
a
ege
t
h
at
s
h
e
was
co
n
struct
i
ve
l
y
discharged
. "
A
clai
m
for
constructive
discharge
h
as
two
e
l
e
m
ents.
F
ir
st
,
a
p
la
inti
must
show
that
his
working
conditio
n
s
became
so
intolerable
t
h
at
a
reasonab
l
e
person
th
e
employee
'
s
position
wou
h
ave
fe
lt
co
mp
el
l
ed
to
resign.
Second
,
a p
l
aintiff
must
actua
y
resign
because
those
conditions."
Perkins,
936
F
.
3d
at
2
-
1
2
(inte
rn
quotations
and
citat
i
o
n
s
om
itt
ed).
T
h
e
severity
or
pervasiveness
th
e
h
arassme
nt
needed
to
s
upp
ort
a
cons
tru
ct
i
ve
discharge
c
l
aim
i
s g
r
eater
th
an
th
at
w
ch
r
eq
uir
e
d
to
pro
ve
a
ho
st
e
work
e
n
viro
nm
ent
claim.
I
at
2
1
2
.
Perceived
un
fa
irn
ess,
un
p
l
easant
worki
n
g
cond
ons
,
a
nd
being
d
i
ssat
i
sfied
wit
h
work
ass
i
g
nm
ents
are
a
suffic
i
ent
,
w
i
tho
ut
more
,
to
s
upp
ort
that
a
plaintiff
was
co
n
structive
l
y
scha
r
ged.
Id.
Here
,
plaintiff
has
fai
l
ed
to
plausibly
a
ege
constr
u
ct
i
ve
discharge
because
s
h
e
has
failed
t
o
plausibly
a
ege
a c
l
aim
for
hostile
work
env
i
ronment.
A
h
ost
e
work
e
n
vironment
exists
w
h
ere
"the
workp
l
ace
p
ermeated
w
ith
discriminatory
intimidation
,
rid
i
c
u
l
e
,
and
s
t
that
i
s
s
u
fficie
ntl
y
severe
or
pervasive
to
a
l
ter
the
co
nditi
ons
the
victi
m
'
s e
mpl
oy
m
ent
and
create
an
abusive
work
g e
nvi
ro
nm
ent[.]"
Harris
v
.
Forklift
Sys
.
,
In
c.,
5
10
U.S
.
17
, 2
1
(
1
993)
(
int
erna
l
8
im
il
in
of
pl
bl
(l)
ri
or
iv
iti
of
iv
in
li
E.I
o.
761
.,
il
ll
li
in
r.
ll
ll
hi
il
im
in
pl
in
of
s.
ll
in
il
ll
of
of
ll
in
NC
Off
of
01
,_
_,
11
in
ll
hi
rn
or
rl
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
9
of
10
qu
otat
ion
s a
nd
cita
tion
o
mitt
ed).
In
o
rd
er
to
pro
ve
a c
l
a
for
a
h
ost
e
wo
rk
e
n
v
ironm
e
nt
violation
Title
VII
,
a
a
intiff
mu
st
ultim
a
t
e
l
y
b
e a
e
to
d
e
m
o
n
strate
th
a
t "
she
ex
p
e
e
n
ce
d
un
we
l
c
om
e
har
ass
m
e
nt
;
(2)
the
h
arass
m
e
nt
was
ba
sed
on
h
er
gen
d
e
r
,
race
,
age
;
(3)
the
h
arass
m
e
nt
was
s
uffi
c
i
e
ntl
y
seve
r
e
or
p
e
r
vas
e
t
o a
lt
e
r
the
cond
o
n
s
e
mpl
oy
m
e
nt
and
c
r
eate
an
ab
u
s
e a
tm
osp
h
e
r
e;
and
(4)
th
e
r
e
i
s
so
m
e
ba
s
i
s
for
impo
s
g
ability
on
th
e e
mplo
yer.
"
Bass
v
.
Du
Pont
d
e
Ne
m
ours
&
C
,
32
4
F.3d
,
765
(4th
Cir.
2
00
3);
see
a
l
so
J
essup
v
.
Barnes
Grp
In
c
.,
23
F.4t
h
36
0
,
367
(4t
h
Cir.
2
0
22)
(substantially
s
imil
a
r
e
l
eme
nt
s
fo
r
A
D
A
ho
st
e
work
e
n
viro
nm
en
t
c
l
a
im)
.
Plaintiff's
a
egat
i
o
n
s
co
nc
ern
rud
e a
nd
di
sres
p
ect
ful
b
e
ha
v
i
or
,
fee
l
i
n
g
ke
s
h
e
was
o
n
a
n
e
m
ot
i
o
n
a
l
ro
l
l
ercoaster,
and
e
n
co
unt
er
g
co
nd
esce
ndin
g
b
e
h
av
i
o
But
rud
e
tr
eatme
nt
,
eve
n b
y a
s
up
erv
i
sor
,
d
oes
not
s
upp
o
rt
a
h
os
til
e
wo
rk
e
n
v
ironm
e
nt
c
l
a
im
.
Perkins
,
936
F
.
3
d
at
2
08
.
Plaintiff's
a
ega
tion
s s
impl
y
fail
t
o
plau
s
ibl
y a
ege
any
seve
r
e o
r
pervasive
h
arass
m
e
nt
w
ch
co
uld
s
upp
ort
a
h
ost
e
wo
rk
env
ironm
e
nt
c
l
a
.
Accord
g
l
y
,
a
inti
ff's
h
os
til
e
wo
rk
e
n
v
i
ron
m
e
nt
c
l
a
im
i
s
di
sm
i
ssed
a
nd
s
h
e
may
not
r
e
l
y
o
n
constructive
di
sc
h
arge as
adverse
em
plo
y
m
e
nt
act
ion
s
upp
ort
h
e
r
Titl
e
VJI
c
laim
Fina
y
,
a
nd
imp
o
rtantly
,
plaintiff's
comp
l
a
t
fa
s
to
pl
a
usibl
y
a
ege
that
any
d
efe
ndant
'
s
actions
were
tak
e
n
bec
a
u
se
h
e
r
a
ege
d
di
sa
bilit
y
or
that
h
er
race
was
a
m
o
tivatin
g
factor
any
alleged
adverse
e
mpl
oy
ment
action
.
S
e
e
Jacobs
v
.
A
dmin.
th
e
Cts.
,
780
F.3d
562
,
572
(4
th
C
ir.
2
5)
;
Joh
n
s
on
v
.
Baltimore
City
,
Maryland
F.
4th
No.
25-
24
,
2
0
26
WL
3
177
6
,
at
*4
(4
th
C
ir.
Jan
.
6
,
202
6).
While
pl
a
intiff
ha
s
made
reference
to
Ca
uc
asia
n
cowo
rk
ers
,
pr
es
umabl
y
as
co
mparat
ors
,
s
h
e
h
as
n
o
t
c
lud
e
d
a
egat
ion
s w
c
h
wo
uld
plausibly
s
upp
o
rt
that
any
o
f h
er
co
mp
ara
tor
s
ea
ed
mor
e
than
s
h
e
did
for
the
sa
m
e
wor
k
that
they
were
otherw
i
se
s
imil
a
y s
ituat
e
d
a
nd
r
eceived
more
favorable
treatm
e
nt.
9
in
v.
Ctr.
,296
ff
of
of
in
in
in
of
in
ffs
of
is
in
in
of
1]
is
is
in
/...J
of
TE
NCE
Case
7:25-cv-00726-BO-RN
Document
25
Filed
01/13/26
Page
10
of
10
Plaintiff's
arg
um
e
nt
s
opposit
i
on
to
the
motion
to
dismiss
do
not
l
ead
to
a
different
result.
In
her
opposition
,
plaintiff
at
times
seeks
to
ad
d
factua
l
suppo
1
1
to
her
c
laim
s,
but
a
plaintiff
may
not
ame
nd
her
comp
laint
through
h
er
opposition
to
a
motion
to
dismiss.
See
Nea
l
Sa
ndhill
s
,
737
F.
S
upp
.
3d
29
1
(M.D.N
.
C
.
2024)
.
Pla
i
nti
further
seeks
to
add
claims
,
including
a
breach
contract
and
inflicti
on
emot
ion
a
l
distress
c
l
aim
,
whic
h
,
aga
,
she
m
ay
not
do
opposition
to
a
motion
to
dismiss
.
Id
.
Though
plaintiff
requests,
the
alternative,
th
a
t
s
h
e
be
gra
nt
ed
l
eave
to
ame
nd
her
comp
l
a
int
,
s
h
e
has failed
to
file
a
motion
for
l
eave
to
amend
h
er
compla
int
and
failed
to
file
a
proposed
a
m
ended
comp
laint
for
the
Court
to
review.
In
the
exerc
i
se
its
discretion
,
and
h
aving
considered
plaintiff's
oppos
iti
o
n
brief
full
,
the
Co
urt
denies
plaint
i
request
due
to
her
failure
to
comply
with
the
rules.
See
Francis
v
.
Giacomelli
,
588
F.3d
186
,
197
(4t
h
Cir.
2009)
(failure
to
file
separate
motion
to
amend
and
proposed
amended
complaint
grounds
for
denial
r
eques
t
to
ame
nd
);
Local
C
i
vil
Rule
1
5
.1.
'
Defendant
'
s
m
otion
to
dismiss
therefore
granted
full,
for
the reasons
outlined
above
and
those
ra
i
sed
s
upp
ort
defendant
'
s
motion
to
dismiss.
CONCLUS
IO
N
Accordingly
,
for
the
foregoing
r
easo
n
s,
plaintiff's
moti
o
n
for
l
eave
to
amend
[D
E 2
DENlED
and
defendant's
motion
to
dismiss
[D
E
1
4]
GRANTED.
Plaintiff's
complaint
is
DISMISSED
its
e
ntir
ety.
The
clerk
i
s
DIRECTED
to
c
l
ose
the
case
.
SO
ORDERED
,
this
day
January
2026.
W.
BOYLE
UNITED
STATES
DI
STR
IC
T
JUD
10
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access