Background
Jane Doe, a religious woman employed by the FBI, alleged that her supervisor, John Smith, engaged in years of sexual harassment, stalking, and blackmail. Smith referred Doe to the FBI Office of the Inspector General for mortgage fraud, leading to a criminal investigation and her eventual termination for lack of candor regarding her relationship with Smith. Doe filed administrative complaints and sued the Attorney General under Title VII, alleging hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. The district court dismissed her federal claims for failure to state a claim.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting all well-pled factual allegations as true. The court found Doe’s hostile work environment claim failed because she did not allege facts showing the harassment continued because of her sex. The court rejected her continuing violations theory, noting that the OIG investigation was not shown to be motivated by discrimination. Regarding discrimination, the court found Doe failed to allege that her termination was based on a protected characteristic, as employee rank is not protected and she offered no comparator evidence. The retaliation claim failed because the four-month gap between her EEO complaint and termination was insufficient to establish causation without further evidence linking the two.
Doe provides no factual support for those legal conclusions. Even if the OIG’s investigation began with a dishonest tip provided by an alleged harasser, nothing in the complaint supports the inference that the investigation continued because of Doe’s sex.
Doe v. Blanche, No. 25-1442, slip op. at 9 (6th Cir. May 4, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the pleading standards for Title VII claims in the Sixth Circuit, requiring plaintiffs to allege specific facts linking adverse employment actions to protected characteristics rather than relying on general allegations of harassment or temporal proximity alone.