1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHONDA VALENTINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE TOWERS CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION

,

Defendant. Case No. 22- cv -3216 (JMC)

MEMORANDUM OPIN I ON

Plaintiff Shonda Valentine sues her former employer, Defendant Towers Condominium

Association (TCA), alleging she was wrongfully terminated via constructive discharge brought

about by disability and racial discrimination in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA),

federal law, and public policy

. ECF 1. The TCA now moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim,

arguing that some of Plaintiff’s claims are time barred, others are not exhausted, and all of them

fail regardless because she does not plead sufficient facts to establish co nstructive discharge.

ECF 5-1. Plaintiff opposes, ECF 6, but the Court finds that her claims must be dismissed. To the

extent Plaintiff intends to bring DCHRA claims

, they are time

- barred. As for the remaining claims,

the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s allegations, even taken as true, do not plausibly

show that Defendant intentionally subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory working conditions so

“intolerable” that her only reasonable choice was to resign

. As such , the Court will GRANT the

TCA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

. 1

1 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of citations has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by

omitting internal quotation marks, emphases, citations, and alterations and by altering capitalization. All pincites to

documents filed on t he docket in this case are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at

the top of each page.2 I. BACKGROUND

The Court gleans the following facts from Plaintiff’s complain t and Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) c harge, which is referenced in the complaint and attached as an

exhibit to her opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss

. In February 2020, the TCA hired

Valentine

— an African American woman with a cognitive disability and anxiety disorder

— as a

part

- time liaison to assist with Defendant’s ongoing construction project in the Cathedral Heights

neighborhood in Washington, D.C. ECF 1 ¶¶ 5

, 7

– 8 ; ECF 6

- 1 at 5. The liaison position required

Valentine to ass ess and report on contractual obligations, construction specifications, and safety

issues relating to the project, and to serve as a point of communication and coordinator between

the TCA, its residents, and contractors. ECF 1 ¶¶ 6

, 9. O n March 27, 2021, V alentine began

reporting directly to TCA Vice President Sandy Kolb

. Id. ¶ 10. About one month later

, the TCA

hired a new Director of Operations to whom Plaintiff would report

, but Kolb still supervised

Plaintiff’s actions both directly and indirectly. Id. ¶¶ 11

– 12.

Valentine makes several allegations

, which the Court must take as true at this stage

, that

Kolb mistreat ed Plaintiff during her time at the TCA. Valentine “reported safety, contract, and

regu latory concerns” to Kolb, but Kolb ignored or dismissed these reports

. Id. ¶ 13. Kolb allegedly

“increase d her abuse” the more that Valentine reported such issues, telling Valentine that she “did

not know what she was talking about,” interrupt ing her while she was speaking

, and “question [ing]

her mental capability.” Id. ¶¶ 13

– 14. At one point, Kolb stated that she trusted the opinions of two

White male contractors over Valentine’s. Id. ¶ 1 3

. Furthermore, Kolb “allow[ed] Plaintiff to be

verbally abused by other employees and residents” by “refus[ing] to act” on harassment, including

an incident during which a condominium resident made “racially charged commentary” about

“slavery and plantations” in Plaintiff’s presence. Id. ¶¶ 14, 33.3 While Valentine was still working part

- time in May 2021, management asked her to “create

a position description for a newly created Contracts Administrator position.” ECF 6

- 1 at 6. One

month later, Kolb (who was then serving as TCA President) selected Valentine for th is new, full

time role. Id. But Plaintiff remained frustrated by Kolb’s “questioning [of] her mental stability,

temperament, and qualifications, all while refusing to address Plaintiff’s concerns,” ECF 1 ¶ 1 4

,

which “hindered [ her ] ability to effectively fulfill the duties of the role,” see ECF 6

- 1 at 6. O n or

about Aug ust 2 6

, 2021, “[f]eeling she had no other choice,” Valentine resigned. ECF 1 ¶ 15 ;

ECF 6

- 2 at 1

. 2 In her exit interview, Plaintiff “ was informed ” that Defendant “did not trust

Plaintiff’s opinions or reports” and “had concerns about her mental capabilities because Plaintiff

was in therapy.” ECF 1 ¶ 16.

Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination on June 14, 2022, received a right to sue letter on

Ju ly 27, 2022, and filed suit in this Court on October 20, 2022. ECF 1 ¶¶ 17

– 18. Defendant moved

to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ECF 5, and Plaintiff filed

an opposition to that motion

, ECF 6. Having considered the Pa rties’ arguments, the Court is now

prepared to rule on th e motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

For a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, the Court must determine whether

the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal

, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). T he Court “must accept as

true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,” but need not do the same for legal conclusions

2 The Court notes that there is a one

- day discrepancy between Plaintiff’s complaint and her EEOC forms as to when

she resigned. Compare ECF 1 ¶ 15 (“Plaintiff resigned

. . . on or about August 25, 2021), with ECF 6

- 2 at 1 (“I

resigned on 08/26/2021.”), and ECF 6

- 1 at 3 (listing “Date of Incident” as August 26, 2021). For the purpose of this

motion, the Court will grant Plaintiff the benefit of the later resignation date when assessing the timeliness of her

DCHRA claims even though, as laid out infra

, this one

- day difference is inconsequential.4 or naked assertions of wrongdoing devoid of supporting facts. Harris v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth.

,

791 F.3d 65, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal

, 556 U.S. at 678). In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion,

the Court “may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to

or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the Court] may take judic ial notice.” EEOC

v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch.

, 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Such a motion may also

raise affirmative defenses, including untimeliness or failure to exhaust administrative remedies

.

Smith

- Haynie v. District of Columbia

, 155 F .3d 575, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Defendant presents various arguments as to why

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

, but for purposes of resolving

this motion the Court will ad dress just two core deficiencies of the complaint

.

First, Plaintiff’s claims under the DCHRA are untimely. Under D.C. law, an aggrieved

employee must file their complaint “within one year of the unlawful discriminatory act, or the

discovery thereof .” D.C. Code § 2

- 1403.16(a). When an employee files a charge with the EEOC,

this “suffices to toll the one

- year statute of limitations,” Craig v. District of Columbia

, 74 F. Supp.

3d 349, 366 (D.D.C. 2014), but the tolling period “end[s] when the EEOC issue[s] its right to sue

notice,” Hammel v. Marsh USA Inc.

, 79 F. Supp. 3d 234, 241 (D.D.C. 2015). Here, the only

“unlawful discriminatory act” alleged by Plaintiff is “ constructive[] discharge[] by the Defendant

due to Plaintiff’s disability” and “due to Plaintiff’s race.” ECF 1 ¶¶ 22, 30. Thus, the statute of

limitations started running when Plaintiff resigned on August 26, 2021. According to the timeline

as Plaintiff v iews it, see ECF 6 at 3

– 4, she filed her EEOC charge on June 14, 2022 ( i.e., 292 days

later)

, ECF 1 ¶ 17. This tolled her deadline to file suit, but the clock started ticking once again

when she received her right to sue letter on July 27, 2022

. ECF 1 ¶ 18

. On that date

, Valentine had5 73 days remaining to file suit in this Court

, meaning her complaint deadline was October 10, 2022

. 3

She then missed this deadline by 10 days by filing suit on October 20, 2022. Valentine offer s no

basis for this Court to excu se her untimeliness, and so her DCHRA claims must be dismissed.

Second, Plaintiff fails to allege constructive discharge, which is fatal to each of her

remaining claims of disparate treatment discrimination and wrongful termination. Under current

caselaw, Valentine must plausibly plead that she “suffered an adverse employment action” to

proceed with her discrimination claims. Adeyemi v District of Columbia

, 525 F.3d 1222, 1 226

(D.C. Cir. 2008); Baloch v. Kempthorne

, 550 F.3d 1191, 1196 (D.C. Cir. 2008). And to proceed

with her wrongful termination claim, she must plausibly plead that she was in fact terminated by

her employer. Cf. Lockhart v. Coastal Int’l Sec., Inc.

, 5 F. S upp. 3d 101, 105

– 06 (D.D.C. 2013).

To meet those requirements

, Plaintiff relies solely on her resignation, which she characterizes as

a n involuntary “ constructive discharge

. ” S ee ECF 1 ¶¶ 15, 22, 30, 39

. In theory, a constructive

discharge could satisfy th ese necessary threshold elements, Aliotta v. Barr

, 614 F.3d 556, 566

(D.C. Cir. 2010)

, but simply invoking the words “constructive discharge,” without more, will not

carry an otherwise insufficient complaint over the line of plausibility

, s ee Iqbal

, 556 U.S. at 678

.

To prove constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that their employer (1) intentionally

discriminate d against them

, and (2) in doing so

, deliberately ma de working conditions so

objectively intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign

. See Clark v.

Marsh

, 665 F.2d 1168, 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. Th e doctrine demands a “further showing” beyond

that of a hostile work environment claim

, Penn. State Police v. Suders

, 542 U.S. 129, 134 (2004),

which itself already calls for proof of “‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ that is

‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an

3 The Court recognizes that 73 days after July 27, 2022, would be October 8, 2022. But that was a Saturday, so

Plaintiff’s deadline to file was the following Monday, October 10, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1).6 abusive working environment,’” Baloch

, 550 F.3d at 1201 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

,

510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). For constructive discharge then

, there must be “discrimination and the

existence of certain ‘aggravating factors’

. . . that, by making the workplace so disagreeable,

prevent the reasonable employee from seeking remediation on the job.” Veitch v. England

,

471 F.3d 124, 130 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

. After all, “[r]esignations or retirements are presumed to be

voluntary,” Aliotta

, 614 F.3d at 566, and society, law, and policy are believed to be “best served

if, wherever possible, unlawful dis crimination is attacked within the context of existing

employment relationships,” Clark

, 665 F.2d at 1173. As such, “ [t] he kinds of situations where

courts have upheld constructive

- discharge findings tend to involve extreme mistreatment or thinly

veiled (o r even overt) threats of termination” indicative of a deliberate effort to drive the employee

out. Robinson v. Ergo Sols, LLC

, 85 F. Supp. 3d 275, 283 (D.D.C. 2015)

.

Looking underneath Plaintiff’s repeated assertion that she was subject to “constructive

discharge ,” the Court finds that the factual allegations of her complaint cannot bear the weight of

such a hefty label. The complaint do es not describe mistreatment that courts have found so

objectively intolerable that a “ reasonable person in [her] position would have felt compelled to

resign.” Aliotta

, 614 F.3d at 566. To be sure, t he Court acknowledges that Valentine’s non

conclusory factual assertions

— f ew in number as they may be

— do paint a picture of an unpleasant

work environment in which her employer dismissed her safety reports

, interrupted her when

speaking, questioned her mental capabilities, and devalued her opinions

. Of particular concern are

Valentine’s allegations that the TCA refused to respond to “harassment reports” and failed to

address two instances of “racially charged commentary. ” ECF 1 ¶¶ 14, 33. Nonetheless, her scarce

descriptions of specific misconduct do not reflect the degree of extreme mistreatment required to

plau sibly show that the TCA “deliberately made working conditions intolerable and drove [her]7 into an involuntary quit.” Clark

, 665 F.2d at 1173. Valentine does not allege

, for example, that the

TCA threatened her with termination, cf. Ross v. U.S. Capitol Pol ice

, 195 F. Supp. 3d 180, 203

–

204 (D.D.C. 2016), that it deliberately exacerbated her disability by refusing to provide

accommodations

, cf. Floyd v. Lee

, 968 F. Supp. 2d 308, 330 (D.D.C. 2013), that it denied her a

promotion or any other tangible benefit i n a manner that caused “predictable humiliation and loss

of prestige

, ” c f. Clark

, 665 F.2d at 1175

– 76

, or any other factors that courts have found sufficiently

aggravating to support a constructive discharge claim

. To the contrary

, after Valentine had worked

under her allegedly abusive supervisor for three months

, that same supervisor offered Valentine a

promotion from part

- time to full

- time work (only for Valentine to resign two months later)

. ECF 6

-

1 at 6; see ECF 1 ¶ 15. At bottom, Valentine has not alleged a single aggravating factor that would

transform her resignation

— which is presumed voluntary

— in to a constructive discharge

, so h er

remaining claims must be dismissed. 4

IV. CONCLUSION

F or the foregoing reasons, Defendant ’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

,

ECF 5

, is GRANTED

, and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

. A separate order accompanies

this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

_________ ___ ______________ JIA M. COBB

United States District Judge

Date: March 2 6

, 2024

4 To be clear, the Court need not and does not address whether Valenti ne has alleged sufficient facts to bring a hostile

work environment claim because she has not brought such a claim in the first place

. Moreover, whether Valentine

could proceed with a hypothetical hostile work environment claim has no bearing on the Court’ s conclusion that she

has failed to allege constructive discharge. See Sims v. Sunovion Pharms., Inc.

, No. 17

- cv

- 2519 (CKK), 2019 WL

690343, at *11

– 12 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2019) (dismissing constructive discharge claim but not hostile work environment

claim); see also Robinson

, 85 F. Supp. 3d at 28 2

– 84 (dismissing constructive discharge claim but not retaliation claim).