United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M.
HANNAH LAUCK, UNITED STATES DITRICT JUDGE.
This
matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed
by Defendant Dominion Payroll Services ("Dominion")
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).[1](ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff Angela Georges
has responded to the Motion to Dismiss, and Dominion has
replied. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) The Court exercises jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.[2]This matter is ripe for
disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argument because
the materials before it adequately present the facts and
legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional
process. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the
Motion to Dismiss.
I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Standard
"A
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency
of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests
surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C.
v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs
well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint
is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th
Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This
principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and
"a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to
begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more
than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009).
The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to 'give
the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (omission in
original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with
complaints containing only "labels and conclusions"
or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a
plaintiff must assert facts that rise above speculation and
conceivability to those that "show" a claim that is
"plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570;
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). "A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Therefore, in
order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for
failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege
facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her
claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citations
omitted).
II.
Procedural and Factual Background
A.
Summary of Allegations in the Complaint
[3]
On or
about May 4, 2015, Dominion hired Georges, a 52-year-old
female, as Benefits Implementation Specialist. The
qualifications for the Benefits Implementation Specialist
position included an associate's degree (with a
bachelor's degree preferred) and three years'
experience in employee benefits, or an equivalent combination
of experience and education.
Georges
obtained her Bachelor of Science in Business with a focus in
Marketing and Management, and she obtained her Master's
Degree in Business Administration with a focus in
Organizational and Human Resources Development. She
previously worked as a "Quickbooks Online Small Business
Consultant" and as a "Tax Services/Support
Advisor" at Intuit in Fredericksburg, Virginia. (Compl.
¶ 7.) At Intuit, Georges worked with business owners,
accountants, and tax professionals to identify solutions to
various business and financial problems. From 2010 to 2012,
Georges worked as a Claims Counselor at HILLDRUP, where she
tracked and recovered undelivered items and developed
procedures to improve workflow and efficiency. Prior to that,
from 2000 to 2007, Georges worked at Mary Washington
University as an Office Manager and Administrative Program
Specialist. At Mary Washington University, Georges maintained
the school's credit card program, trained and supervised
office and student staff, created a purchasing training
manual, and managed policies for the purchase system.
Finally, from 1998 to 2000, Georges worked as a Senior
Executive Administrative Assistant at Peninsula Health Care,
where she analyzed life and health benefits and group account
renewals, consulted with human resources, and managed
administrative functions.
As
Benefits Implementation Specialist at Dominion, Georges had
the following responsibilities: customer support; tracking of
customer date; manage plans to ensure deliverables and launch
dates are met; and, customer training for self-sufficiency
after implementation. In her tenure as Benefits
Implementation Specialist, Dominion never disciplined
Georges, and at all times, Georges received positive feedback
from the department manager, Laura Johnson.
During
the first days of her tenure at Dominion, Georges asked for
an employee handbook. Lora Meade, the human resources
director, informed Georges that no such handbook existed. In
fact, while employed at Dominion, Georges never received a
statement of Dominion's employment policies or
procedures. Approximately two weeks after Georges began her
tenure at Dominion, Johnson complained to her about
upper-management and being overwhelmed. Georges offered to
help Johnson, and in June 2015, Georges received an email
from Johnson praising Georges's work.
On or
about July 13, 2015, Johnson and Meade terminated Georges
without warning or notice. Johnson and Meade did not
communicate to Georges any substantive performance issues,
and the termination conflicted with previous statements
regarding Georges's employment. At the time of
termination, Johnson and Meade did not provide Georges with
any records regarding her job performance, duties, or
disciplinary actions. Georges alleges that, based on
information and belief, Dominion filled her position with a
younger, less experienced employee.
B.
Procedural History
Georges's
Complaint alleges one count: "Violations of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act [the
'ADEA']."[4] (Compl. 5.) Georges asserts membership
in the class of people protected by the ADEA because she is
over forty years old. She contends that Dominion wrongfully
terminated her by intentionally discriminating against her on
the basis of age. Georges claims to have suffered damages,
including embarrassment, inconvenience, humiliation, ...