Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—D. Md.: Neither sex discrimination nor national origin discrimination led to promotion denials, (Nov 10, 2025)

By Jeffrey H. Brochin, J.D.

Although employee was of Russian origin and female, she did not plead that the position at issue was filled by an individual less qualified nor that she was better suited for the position, and as a result there was no inference of discrimination.

A federal District Court in Maryland has granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Employer) in a Title VII discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by an Employee who claimed both sex discrimination and national origin discrimination. Although she failed to properly plead those claims, the court found that her claims of retaliation and retaliatory hostile work claim were sufficiently pleaded (Timothy v. Kennedy, No. 8:24-cv-03313-TDC (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2025)).

Allegations of discrimination. The Employee, a Russian American woman who held a medical degree from Russia, worked at HHS since 2008 as a Public Health Analyst reviewing disputed reports and drafting decision letters. She felt that such work was ‘less prestigious’ and she applied for policy-oriented work at various times but was repeatedly turned down. She believed that the rejections were due to national origin discrimination and she cited such offensive encounters as an inquiry as to her drinking vodka everyday, whether she rode a bear to school in Russia, and the advice that she get language accent training because ‘her Russian accent was not welcome in America.’

She further claimed that after she served as a witness at an EEO proceeding for a co-worker and signed an affidavit on her behalf, her Employer began retaliatory measures including yelling at her, writing up Professional Misconduct reports and ultimately suspending her. She filed an EEO complaint which resulted in a finding of no discriminatory nor retaliatory conduct by HHS, and the instant judicial action followed.

Pleading discrimination. After determining that HHS’s motion should properly be considered as a Motion to Dismiss rather than a Motion for Summary Judgement (due to no discovery having taken place), the court examined Count I (sex discrimination) and Count III (national origin discrimination) as to the sufficiency of those pleadings. To state a claim under Title VII the Employee needed to show—by either direct or indirect evidence—that the Employer’s adverse action was motivated by her sex or national origin, and that the Employer was therefore liable for discrimination.

To allege a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination based on failure to promote, the Complaint needed to allege that (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she applied for the position in question, (3) she was qualified for the position, and, (4) she was rejected for it under circumstances giving rise to the inference of unlawful discrimination.

No inference of discrimination. The court found that the Employee properly established that she was not promoted, and, that she was of Russian origin. However, as to the fourth prong, the fact that the position was filled by an individual from outside the protected class—without allegations that the Employee was more qualified or better suited for the position—was not alone sufficient to support an inference of discrimination. Although some allegations, such as the letter of reprimand or a low performance evaluation might qualify as ‘disparate treatment’, she provided only cursory claims that her supervisors would not have treated a man or a non-Russian in the same way she was treated. Accordingly, the court granted HHS’s Motion to Dismiss as to her Count I and Count III.

Retaliation claim. The court next turned to her retaliation claim. In Count IV, she alleged that she was subjected to retaliation for protected EEO activity. To state a retaliation claim under Title VII, she needed to allege facts that (1) she engaged in protected activity, (2) the Employer took a materially adverse action against her, (3) the protected activity was causally connected to the Employer’s adverse action. ‘Protected activity’ includes making a charge of a Title VII violation or ‘testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.’

Here, the Employee properly alleged that she engaged in protected activity when she provided an affidavit for her co-worker’s EEO case, and, when she filed her own previous EEO complaint in April, 2020. The court found that the Employer’s material adverse actions included the Professional Misconduct write-up, and, that the Employer’s actions were temporally proximate to the Employee’s protected conduct. Therefore, the court denied HHS’s Motion to Dismiss as to the retaliation claim.

Hostile work environment. Although the Employee’s allegations as to co-worker’s comments regarding her national origin did not satisfy the national origin discrimination requirements of Title VII, they did serve to establish that she endured a hostile work environment as a result of unwelcome intimidation, ridicule and insult. The court therefore denied HHS’s Motion to Dismiss as to that claim.

The case is No. 8:24-cv-03313-TDC.

Judge: Chuang, T.

Attorneys: Sara Lynne Bloom (Law Office of Sara Bloom) for Anastasia Timothy. Ariana Wright Arnold, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Cases: PublicEmployees Discrimination SexDiscrimination NationalOrigin Retaliation MarylandNews