United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
For Paulette Baiden-Adams, Plaintiff: Matthew Thomas Sutter, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wade Friedman Sutter & Dupray PC, Alexandria, VA.
For Forsythe Transportation Inc., Defendant: Robert G. Scott, LEAD ATTORNEY, Daniel Peter Reing, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (DC), Washington, DC.
James C. Cacheris, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Forsythe Transportation's (" Defendant" or " Forsythe Transportation" ) Motion for Entry of Judgment and Attorneys' Fees and Costs (" Motion" ). [Dkt. 25.] For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion.
A. Factual Background
This case concerns an alleged instance of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (2000).
Plaintiff alleged that she and other similarly situated women were sexually harassed by managers employed by Forsythe Transportation at the Arlington Rapid Transit (" ART" ) facility at 2900 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff further alleged that she was terminated in response to her efforts to protect other female drivers from harassment. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ) charge, however, alleged discrimination on the basis of " race," " sex" and " retaliation" . Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that she was fired and replaced by a male employee after inquiring about a pay raise. (Mem. in Support of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1 [Dkt. 13-1].)
B. Procedural Background
On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant Forsythe Transportation. [Dkt. 1.] Defendant filed its answer on June 14, 2013. [Dkt. 5.] On July 25, 2013, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and accompanying memorandum of law. [Dkts. 11-12.] Plaintiff filed her opposition on August 8, 2013. [Dkt. 17.] On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of New Ruling on Subject Matter Jurisdiction. [Dkt. 18.] On August 14, 2013, Defendant filed its reply. [Dkt. 19.]
On August 30, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and took the matter under advisement. [Dkt. 22.] On September 4, 2013, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff's claim without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). [Dkts. 23-24.] On October 25, 2013, Defendant filed its Motion for Attorney's Fees and for Entry of Judgment and accompanying memorandum. [Dkts. 25-26.] ...