Cases & Developments

Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a female former Academic Advisor for the University of Texas at Austin School of Music brought Title VII discrimination claims against the University alleging she experienced sex discrimination and harassment as well as retaliation from one of her supervisors. Specifically, plaintiff alleged her supervisor made several unwelcome comments about her sex such as “oh all three women are here. I’m scared!” When plaintiff requested her supervisor contact a different employee instead of reaching out to her when she was off work he purportedly responded with “But I prefer talking to you…” and in a conversation about her supervisor’s pull up bar on his door, plaintiff contends he told her “you don’t have to [do pullups]. Just let your body hang there. It’s great for your body and it feels good!” Plaintiff alleged she went to the Title IX office to make a complaint but was informed that office was for students only. After students made similar complaints, plaintiff returned to the Title IX office but was told that it “could not guarantee confidentiality or protection from retaliation” and plaintiff then closed her case out of fear of retaliation. Plaintiff eventually took FMLA leave for her mental health after alleged continued mocking and demanding requests from her supervisor. Upon her return from leave, she alleged the remarks did not abate, and she then resigned her position and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In allowing plaintiff’s claims to proceed, the court found that she sufficiently pled harassment as she gave numerus examples of unwelcome comments, finding it possible that her supervisor’s alleged behavior was frequent enough to be severe, and given that some of the communication directly affected her work performance the court further found it plausible that the behavior could rise to the level of offensive and hostile conduct. It also found that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim of discrimination via alleged demands of additional work and tasks plausibly considered “reassignment to menial or degrading work” and further, after reporting her concerns, she was told “she should probably leave the office due to the continued implosion” therefore encouraging her to resign. Because these alleged actions were directed solely toward plaintiff and not her male peers, the court found it sufficient at this stage that the actions could plausibly have been taken due to plaintiff’s sex. Finally, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently pled retaliation as she demonstrated constructive discharge through her resignation due to the difficulty from working with her supervisor.