Where a reasonable juror could conclude that at least some of the harassment a man allegedly endured was because of his race, that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive and that the alleged harasser’s conduct was imputable to the company, the race-based hostile work environment claims will proceed to trial.
Background
Brian Richardson brings discrimination and retaliation claims against Maximus Inc. under (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) Section 1981 and (3) the Virginia Human Rights Act, or VHRA. The gravamen of plaintiff’s allegations is that he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race and sexual orientation that ultimately resulted in his constructive discharge, and that he faced retaliation for his protected activity of internally reporting Harry Sundberg’s conduct towards him. Defendant moves the court for summary judgment.
Motion to strike
Defendant first requests that the court strike the declarations of Doug McEachern and Anna Sever filed in opposition because these witnesses were never disclosed by plaintiff in his Rule 26 disclosures or in his responses to interrogatories. Plaintiff does not argue that he was substantially justified in failing to disclose these two witnesses. Accordingly, the court will not consider their declarations in ruling on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Defendant next asks that the court partially strike the several declarations because they allegedly contain conclusory statements...
Actor-politician Ravi Kishan has filed a first information report (FIR) against an individual for allegedly making false and defamatory statements aimed at damaging his public image and reputation...