## Facts

- Melanie P. Mangum worked for a North Carolina municipality from 1995 and became a firefighter on July 16, 2006; she remained until March 10, 2007.
- At the time she accepted the firefighter position, the department’s firefighters were all men, and she was warned that an engineer (Eric Wood) allegedly stated he was uncomfortable working with a female firefighter and would refuse to respond with her on his team.
- Mangum complained to the fire chief (Cecil Parker) about Wood’s remarks and perceived gender discrimination; she alleged the chief urged her to confront Wood directly and stated she would be required to work with him.
- After human resources involvement, Mangum and Wood were placed on different shifts.
- Mangum alleged she was assigned to a smaller station where probationary firefighters were generally not assigned, which she claimed limited training, advancement, and interaction with coworkers.
- She alleged delays in receiving protective gear and equipment (including turnout gear and a radio), requiring her to work without needed equipment for a period.
- Mangum alleged coworkers frequently used vulgar profanity at the station; after she complained, she was warned to “watch her back” and believed profanity increased around her.
- She took FMLA leave for mental anguish and to care for ill parents, and resigned when the leave expired rather than return.
- Mangum filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue notice, and brought Title VII claims for hostile work environment, sex-based disparate treatment, and retaliation; the Town moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the allegations stated a Title VII hostile work environment claim based on sex, including whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive and because of sex.
2. Whether the allegations stated a plausible Title VII disparate treatment claim by alleging adverse terms or conditions of employment because of sex.
3. Whether the allegations stated a plausible Title VII retaliation claim by alleging protected activity, materially adverse action, and a causal connection.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
- The hostile work environment claim was dismissed for failure to allege sufficiently severe or pervasive, gender-based harassment.
- The sex-based disparate treatment claim survived because the pleaded facts plausibly alleged less favorable station assignment and delayed/denied equipment because of sex.
- The retaliation claim survived because the pleaded facts plausibly alleged protected complaints and materially adverse actions plausibly linked to those complaints.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment requires allegations that harassment was unwelcome, based on sex, sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions, and objectively and subjectively abusive.
- General workplace vulgarity, without allegations that it was directed at the plaintiff or at women as a group, may be inadequate to plead harassment “because of sex.”
- For disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, and that sex was a motivating factor.
- For retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must plausibly allege protected activity, a materially adverse action that could deter a reasonable worker from complaining, and a causal connection (including plausible temporal or contextual inferences) between the two.
- Non-termination actions—such as undesirable assignments or denial/delay of necessary work equipment—can qualify as adverse actions for disparate treatment and materially adverse actions for retaliation at the pleading stage when plausibly linked to sex or protected activity.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the hostile work environment claim because the alleged profanity and workplace conduct were not plausibly tied to sex and were not sufficiently severe or pervasive, but allowed the sex discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed based on allegations of unfavorable assignment and delayed/denied equipment plausibly connected to Mangum’s gender and her complaints.


Mangum v. Town of Holly Springs, 551 F. Supp. 2d 439 (E.D.N.C. 2008)