Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 15-1711
CAROL WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01247-CMH-IDD)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Carol Williams brought this action against her employer,
Prince
William
County,
Virginia,
alleging
she
was
sexually
2000e
to
2000e-17
(2012).
Challenging
only
the
the
wrong
standard
for
assessing
adverse
employment
We agree.
F.3d
187,
190
(4th
2010).
When
ruling
on
such
(2007)
(per
curiam).
complaint
need
only
give
the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.
marks
However,
omitted).
plaintiffs
may
proceed
into
the
based
upon
its
judicial
experience
and
common
More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (At
bottom, a plaintiff must nudge [her] claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible to resist dismissal. (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Title
VII
prohibits
an
employer
from
discriminat[ing]
Because Williams
analyzed
her
retaliation
claim
under
the
burden-
action
retaliation
claim.
for
The
purposes
district
of
stating
court
found
Title
that
VII
Williams
employment
discrimination
discrimination
VIIs
action
claim.
claim,
to
establish
However,
the
antiretaliation
adverse
substantive
substantive
unlike
action
provision
her
component
is
not
of
Title
limited
to
VIIs
antiretaliation
provision
can
be
satisfied
by
the
Supreme
reassignment
is
Court
not
has
stated
automatically
that,
although
actionable,
it
a
may
job
be
citations omitted).
benefits
of
the
plaintiffs
employment
are
factors
to
be
Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640, 650 n.2 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that
the Supreme Courts decision in Burlington Northern broadened
the
Fourth
Circuits
adverse
employment
action
standard
to
considered.
Given
Williams
allegations
about
the
analyze
adverse
only
whether
employment
Williams
action.
Namely,
transfer
it
is
constituted
undisputed
an
that
Williams was informed of her transfer before she filed her first
EEO complaint.
particular,
Williams
alleged
that
she
was
denied
deserved pay increase, had her office and equipment taken away
5
or
limited,
unattainable
least
and
goals
plausible
reasonable
was
in
her
that
employee
discrimination.
excluded
performance
such
from
from
actions
making
or
meetings
and
evaluation.
would
have
supporting
It
given
is
dissuaded
a
charge
at
a
of
it
dismissed
Williams
retaliation
claim
because
she
and
we
proceedings. *
remand
to
the
district
court
for
further
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED