Background
Hang Zhang is a Chinese-American woman and Ph.D. in Linguistics employed by the Department of the Army’s Defense Language Institute as a Student Learning Specialist. During a structural reorganization on May 5, 2023, she was reassigned to the Chinese school against her requests, allegedly based on her race, sex, and national origin rather than legitimate business reasons. While similarly situated white male colleagues received their preferred assignments or first-choice positions, Zhang faced additional workload following her reassignment.
Prior to the reassignment, senior leadership at DLI referred to women faculty as a “stable of teachers” and stated “all leaders here are old white male.” A dean repeatedly told Zhang to “go back to Chinese school.” Zhang contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on May 5, 2023, and filed a formal discrimination complaint on June 13, 2023. After filing her EEO complaint, she faced seven separate rejections for positions for which she was qualified. A white male selected for the Test Specialist position lacked a Ph.D. or direct assessment experience that Zhang possessed. In April 2024, Zhang’s ratings were downgraded and a step increase was denied. In January 2025, her quarterly award was rescinded and she was removed from the awards ceremony while no similarly situated white male employee received comparable treatment.
The Court’s Holding
The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that claims exceeding $10,000 must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims under the Little Tucker Act. The plaintiff’s civil cover sheet indicated damages of $650,000, placing the claim outside district court jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the Fifth Amendment Due Process and First Amendment claims, holding that the federal government has not waived sovereign immunity for monetary damages arising from constitutional violations, even though the court had previously ruled on a preliminary injunction motion addressing the merits.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the Title VII disparate treatment claim, finding that allegations of derogatory statements—including “go back to Chinese school” and female faculty being referred to as a “stable of teachers”—plausibly supported discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin. These statements were sufficient to carry the cause of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege a causal nexus between her EEO complaints and adverse actions. Critically, the plaintiff did not identify the decision-makers responsible for the adverse actions, whether they had knowledge of her EEO complaints, or when they learned of such complaints relative to taking adverse action.
The court noted that temporal proximity alone is insufficient to establish the “but-for” causation required under Title VII retaliation doctrine post-Nassar. The court denied the motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim, finding the severity of incidents questionable and appropriately left for the fact-finder. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Privacy Act claim due to insufficient factual allegations about what was disclosed, to whom, and what harm resulted. Most claims may be amended; the Equal Pay Act claim may only be refiled in the Court of Federal Claims.
Key Takeaways
- Disparate treatment claims based on derogatory comments directly referencing protected characteristics can survive motions to dismiss without detailed comparator evidence at the pleadings stage.
- Title VII retaliation claims require specific allegations that decision-makers possessed knowledge of protected EEO activity before taking adverse action; temporal proximity alone does not satisfy but-for causation.
- Equal Pay Act claims against federal employers must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims if damages exceed $10,000, not in federal district court.
- Sovereign immunity shields federal agencies from monetary damages for alleged constitutional violations absent explicit congressional waiver, even after preliminary injunction proceedings on the merits.
- Hostile work environment claims at the motion to dismiss stage may proceed when the aggregate effect of incidents raises severity questions better resolved by a fact-finder.
Why It Matters
This order provides critical guidance for employment lawyers representing federal employees in discrimination cases. The decision confirms that federal employment is subject to Title VII protections and that derogatory comments can establish plausible disparate treatment claims at the pleadings stage. However, practitioners face significant jurisdictional obstacles: constitutional claims against federal agencies do not support monetary damages absent sovereign immunity waiver, and Equal Pay Act claims must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims when damages exceed $10,000.
For plaintiffs’ counsel, the retaliation holding underscores the necessity of pleading specific facts about decision-maker knowledge and the temporal sequence of protected activity and adverse employment action. For defense counsel representing the federal government, the decision confirms sovereign immunity’s continuing strength while allowing discrimination and hostile work environment claims to proceed on fact-intensive bases that reach summary judgment or trial.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket