Zhang v. Driscoll

Background

Hang Zhang, a Chinese-American woman of Chinese national origin, alleged that events during her employment as a Student Learning Specialist at the Defense Language Institute discriminated against her because of race, sex, and national origin. She alleged that she was reassigned to the Chinese Russian school and given additional work, was not selected for seven positions within the institute, had her ratings downgraded and a step increase denied, lost a quarterly award, and experienced other treatment she viewed as discriminatory or retaliatory. She also alleged that she engaged in Equal Employment Opportunity activity and suffered retaliation as a result.

Zhang asserted claims for Title VII disparate-treatment discrimination, Title VII retaliation, a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, an Equal Pay Act claim, First and Fifth Amendment violations, and Privacy Act violations. Daniel Driscoll, identified as Secretary of the Department of the Army, was sued in his official capacity.

Ruling on the Motion

The court considered Defendant’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court stated that it accepted Zhang’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Equal Pay Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss Zhang’s Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Zhang did not specify the damages attributable to that claim, and the civil cover sheet for her original complaint stated that she sought $650,000 in total monetary damages. Because the amount exceeded the threshold discussed by the court, the claim belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. The court dismissed the claim without prejudice to refiling in that court, but without leave to amend the claim in this case.

First and Fifth Amendment claims. The court agreed that the federal government had not waived sovereign immunity for Zhang’s claims seeking monetary damages for alleged constitutional violations. The court also concluded that Zhang had not alleged an immediate threat of repeated injury sufficient to support standing for prospective or injunctive relief. It granted the motion to dismiss the First and Fifth Amendment causes of action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Zhang was allowed to amend those claims only to allege prospective injury supporting injunctive relief; she could not amend them to seek monetary relief.

Disparate-treatment discrimination. Zhang alleged that Defendant violated Title VII by failing to select her for seven roles, imposing additional work, excluding her from institutional roles, and disparaging her. The court concluded that two alleged statements plausibly supported the claim: referring to women faculty as a “stable of teachers” and saying that “all leaders here are old white male,” as well as repeatedly telling Zhang to “go back to Chinese school.” The court did not need to decide whether her allegations about similarly situated employees or other circumstantial evidence were sufficient. It denied the motion to dismiss the disparate-treatment claim.

Retaliation. The court granted the motion to dismiss Zhang’s Title VII retaliation claim. It found that the complaint did not plausibly connect Zhang’s Equal Employment Opportunity complaints to later adverse actions because it did not identify the people responsible for those actions, allege that they knew about the complaints, or allege that they learned of the complaints before taking the actions. The court also found that timing alone did not establish the required causal connection. Zhang was granted leave to amend this claim.

Hostile work environment. Zhang relied on five alleged incidents, including being told to “go back to Chinese school,” women faculty being called a “stable of teachers,” being labeled “unethical,” receiving a dual teaching assignment, and having an award rescinded. The court said the severity and effect of these incidents remained questionable but concluded that it could not determine at the motion-to-dismiss stage that Zhang failed to state a claim. It denied the motion to dismiss the hostile-work-environment claim.

Privacy Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss Zhang’s Privacy Act claim. Zhang did not provide enough facts about the alleged disclosures, including who received certain emails, what they contained, why they were improper, or how the alleged dissemination of investigative information adversely affected her. Zhang was granted leave to amend.

Leave to Amend and Case Status

The court granted Zhang leave to file a further amended complaint because it could not conclude that amendment would be futile for most of her claims. The court’s specific rulings were: the Equal Pay Act dismissal was granted with leave to file in the Court of Federal Claims but without leave to amend in this case; dismissal of the First and Fifth Amendment claims was granted with limited leave to amend; dismissal of the disparate-treatment claim was denied; dismissal of the retaliation claim was granted with leave to amend; dismissal of the hostile-work-environment claim was denied; and dismissal of the Privacy Act claim was granted with leave to amend.

The court stated that Zhang could instead stand on her existing first amended complaint because multiple causes of action remained viable. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered Zhang to file either a further amended complaint or a statement electing to stand on the existing complaint by October 20, 2026.