Hathaway v. Neighborhood House

Background

Sara A. Hathaway participated in the AmeriCorps VISTA program and was assigned to work at Neighborhood House. Hathaway alleges that Joe York, a Neighborhood House custodian, targeted them because of their non-binary gender and sexual orientation. The complaint described incidents including York spitting on Hathaway while they wore Pride apparel and acting aggressively toward them at work.

Hathaway reported York’s conduct to Neighborhood House personnel. The complaint also alleges that Neighborhood House offered Hathaway a permanent Volunteer Coordinator position, and that the offer was rescinded shortly after Hathaway reported other discrimination they had witnessed. AmeriCorps later terminated Hathaway’s VISTA employment. Hathaway sued Neighborhood House and Literacy Minnesota under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging discrimination and retaliation.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true but does not accept bare legal conclusions.

Title VII claims

The court held that Hathaway could not sue either defendant under Title VII based on their AmeriCorps participation. Federal law provides that AmeriCorps participants are not federal employees and are not employees of the organizations receiving AmeriCorps assistance. The court therefore dismissed Hathaway’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against both defendants, Counts 3 and 4, with prejudice.

MHRA claims concerning AmeriCorps participation

The court held that Hathaway’s MHRA claims related to their AmeriCorps service were preempted, meaning federal law displaced state-law claims that conflicted with it. The court relied on federal law and regulations stating that a VISTA member is not, under any circumstances, an employee of the sponsor or subrecipient to which the member is assigned. Because an employment relationship was required for the MHRA employment claims, the court concluded that Hathaway could not establish that relationship under state law.

The court also explained that AmeriCorps has an administrative process for discrimination complaints, including review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Program and possible review by the Corporation for National and Community Service. The opinion states that Hathaway had filed an administrative complaint, but that the status of that process was unclear and did not affect the court’s ruling.

MHRA discrimination claim concerning the job offer

The court dismissed Hathaway’s MHRA discrimination claim against Neighborhood House, Count 1, without prejudice. Although Hathaway alleged protected characteristics, a job offer, rescission of the offer, and harassment by York, the court found that the complaint did not plausibly connect York’s conduct to the hiring decision. The court also noted that Hathaway alleged they had been open about their gender and sexual orientation before Neighborhood House offered the job, and did not allege facts showing discriminatory bias by the people involved in the hiring decision.

MHRA retaliation claim concerning the job offer

The court denied Neighborhood House’s motion to dismiss Hathaway’s MHRA retaliation claim, Count 2, but only as it related to the job offer. Hathaway alleged that they reported discrimination and that Neighborhood House rescinded the offer shortly afterward. The court found those allegations sufficient to state a plausible retaliation claim. It declined to resolve factual questions about whether a formal offer was made or whether the person who allegedly made it had authority to do so, explaining that those questions required further discovery.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted Literacy Minnesota’s motion to dismiss. Hathaway’s claims against Literacy Minnesota were dismissed with prejudice. The court granted Neighborhood House’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: it granted dismissal of the Title VII claims and the MHRA discrimination claim, and denied dismissal of the MHRA retaliation claim only insofar as that claim concerned Neighborhood House’s job offer. The Title VII claims against Neighborhood House were dismissed with prejudice, and the MHRA discrimination claim against Neighborhood House was dismissed without prejudice.