Plaintiff Aviva Buck-Yael sued defendant Washington University in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of discrimination and harassment on the basis of religion, and retaliation, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant Washington University moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Aviva Buck-Yael alleges that she was employed by Washington University as a Linux Systems Administrator and later as a REDCap Application Administrator, during which time she was granted religious accommodations to observe her Orthodox Jewish Faith. These accommodations included unpaid leave for significant Jewish holidays and the ability to work from home on Fridays. The plaintiff alleges that discrimination began in November 2018 with the hire of a new project manager, Laura Jaske, which escalated under her new supervisor, Rachel Komeshak, culminating in the withdrawal of her religious accommodations, issuance of unfounded written warnings, and her eventual termination. Buck-Yael contends that these actions were motivated by religious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Legal Analysis
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion (Count I): The court evaluated whether Buck-Yael had exhausted administrative remedies and whether she stated a claim under Title VII for religious discrimination. The court found that Buck-Yael failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding the claim of discrimination based on the withdrawal of religious accommodations and failed to state a claim because she did not allege an employment requirement conflicting with her religious beliefs or that she was disciplined for failing to comply with such a requirement.
Harassment on the Basis of Religion (Count II): Buck-Yael’s claims of harassment were deemed to potentially constitute a hostile work environment based on religion. The court found that the alleged conduct, including the withdrawal of religious accommodations, issuance of unwarranted disciplinary actions, and public criticism, could be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Buck-Yael’s employment and create an abusive working environment.
Retaliation (Count III): The court also addressed Buck-Yael’s claim of retaliation, finding that she had administratively exhausted her remedies and stated a claim. The plaintiff had engaged in protected activity by seeking assistance from HR and discussing the matter with coworkers, following which she was threatened and ultimately terminated by her supervisor. The court determined that these allegations, if true, could establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
The court concluded that defendant Washington University’s Motion to Dismiss would be granted in part and denied in part, with Count I being dismissed, while Counts II and III could proceed.
Schrag on Law 