Sarco v. 5 Star Fin., LLC

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on defendant 5 Star Financial, LLC, doing business as Armed Forces Benefit Association's ("AFBA"), motion to dismiss Plaintiff Joshua M. Sarco's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim of gender stereotype nonconformity discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, or hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). ECF No. 19. AFBA claims that both the gender stereotype nonconformity and the sexual orientation discrimination claim should be dismissed because Title VII does not protect against such claims of discrimination, and in the alternative, because Sarco fails to sufficiently plead those claims. Further, AFBA claims that the Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment. Sarco responded, [*2]  arguing that he was discriminated against on the basis of gender stereotypes, that Title VII can be read to cover sexual orientation, and that his allegations rise to the level of a hostile work environment. ECF No. 25. AFBA replied to Sarco's response, ECF No. 30, and the court heard argument on the motion to dismiss on April 14, 2020.

Upon agreement by counsel, the court indicated it would withhold judgment on the motion to dismiss pending resolution of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 207 L. Ed. 2d 218 (2020), a case before the Supreme Court that would resolve the question of whether Tide VII covered sexual orientation discrimination. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court concluded that Title VII encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Id. at 1754.

Having reviewed the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock, the motions filed in this case, and the relevant case law in the Fourth Circuit, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part AFBA's motion to dismiss. Sarco will be permitted to proceed on his gender stereotype and sexual orientation discrimination claims under Title VII. However, the court DISMISSES with prejudice his hostile work environment claim.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.