Boney v. Trs. of Cape Fear Cmty. Coll.

366 F. Supp. 3d 756 (2019) United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina 2019-03-05

civil; ADEA constructive discharge; motion to dismiss granted by EDNC (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 2 Age forty or older satisfied pleaded
    As for Cape Fear's amended motion to dismiss Boney's ADEA claim, Boney was 62 years old when she resigned.
  2. 2 Age forty or older satisfied pleaded
    Thus, she was a member of a protected group under the ADEA.
  3. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms not pleaded
    Lakhavani stated that he would "make [himself] available to clarify any assignments or projects" because he desired to "help [Boney] succeed in [her] job."
  4. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms not pleaded
    However, the warning also stated that, if Boney continued to perform below expectations, further action-including possible termination-would be taken.
  5. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms not pleaded
    Because of Boney's deteriorating relationship with Lakhavani, Boney feared that Lakhavani would soon fire her.
  6. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms not pleaded
    To state a constructive discharge claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) an employer acted deliberately to induce resignation and (2) the employee's working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have resigned.
  7. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms not pleaded
    Because Boney has not plausibly alleged constructive discharge, her voluntary resignation is not an adverse employment action under the ADEA.
  8. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms not pleaded
    Notably, despite additional oversight and training, Boney retained the same responsibilities, pay, and benefits.