Sargent v. Department of State et al.

Case Background

On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff Tracy S. Sargent (“Sargent” or “Plaintiff”) filed this civil rights lawsuit against SOC LLC (“SOC” or “Defendant”). She alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”). Specifically, she claimed discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Sargent also brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under District of Columbia common law.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC). Judge Carl J. Nichols presided over this employment discrimination case. [Case Number: 1:19cv620]

Cause

Tracy S. Sargent, a 51-year-old K9 specialist with over 27 years in public safety, was recognized nationally for her expertise in canine safety and security. She trained dogs for detecting explosives and human remains and tracking missing persons.

In 2016, SOC hired Sargent for a Kennel Master position. Sargent began her assignment at the Baghdad Embassy Compound (BEC) in 2017, supervising K9 Bomb Detection Teams. She quickly gained recognition but faced significant challenges, including harassment and discrimination from male coworkers. These men frequently made inappropriate comments, used derogatory language, and created a hostile work environment.

Sargent’s supervisor, Kyle Lindsey, often assigned her undesirable tasks and ignored safety protocols, requiring her to conduct post-checks alone. Donald Dolinger, a State Department employee, also exerted control over her work, disregarded safety procedures, and made sexual advances. Despite Sargent rebuffing these advances, Dolinger’s behavior continued, leading to retaliation.

After rejecting Dolinger’s advances, Sargent was demoted and isolated. She was ordered to remain in the office while male colleagues performed fieldwork. Despite this, Sargent continued to assert her professional boundaries and requested additional duties. Her male supervisors further marginalized her, showing a clear pattern of gender-based discrimination.

On September 13, 2017, Sargent conducted post-checks at various checkpoints. Dolinger and two male colleagues accompanied her. During the trip, they engaged in graphic discussions about pornography, with Dolinger making degrading comments. Sargent, feeling trapped and fearful, reported the harassment to SOC and returned to the U.S. for safety.

SOC promised an investigation but did not conduct one. On October 19, 2017, Sargent was informed of her termination and a Loss of Confidence letter from the State Department. The State Department later rescinded the letter, admitting her complaint was a protected disclosure, but Sargent did not receive updates on retaliation investigations.

Damages

The Defendant’s ongoing and pervasive harassment caused Sargent significant emotional distress. She developed chronic anxiety, depression, and a deep loss of trust in her employers. This distress also led to interpersonal isolation. Sargent continues to experience these emotional effects.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Tracy S. Sargent
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): R. Scott Oswald | Alexa Helen Calomiris | Briana Scholar | Adam Augustine Carter
  • Defendant(s): SOC LLC
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Joon Hwang | Alex Berg | Emily Carapella | Lindsay M. Gonzalez | Paul Lantis

Claims

Count I: Sex Discrimination

Sargent was an “employee” under Title VII, and SOC was an “employer.”  Sargent, as a female, was a member of a protected class. She was qualified for her role, with decades of experience in public safety, and SOC had actively recruited her. Her performance at the BEC was excellent, earning her praise and a promotion shortly after arriving. However, Sargent was treated worse than her male colleagues due to her sex. She was demoted, subjected to a hostile work environment, issued a Loss of Confidence Letter, and ultimately terminated.

Count II: Hostile Work Environment

As an employee, Sargent was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, which created a hostile and offensive work environment. Her male coworkers frequently used derogatory terms for women and discussed explicit content. Sargent’s supervisor, Lindsey, pressured her to accept sexual advances from Dolinger, while failing to protect her. Dolinger used his power to force Sargent into uncomfortable situations, making inappropriate comments and gestures. This harassment was severe and pervasive, creating a fearful and unsafe environment for Sargent.

Count III: Retaliation

Sargent opposed discriminatory practices when she reported harassment to SOC. In retaliation, SOC issued her a Loss of Confidence Letter and terminated her employment. This action occurred almost exactly one month after Sargent’s complaint. SOC’s investigation into her claims was inadequate and lacked sincerity, and no reasonable basis existed for her termination.

Count IV: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, causing Sargent severe emotional distress. SOC and its personnel were responsible for her safety, yet they subjected her to ongoing harassment and mistreatment. This conduct created a dangerous and distressing work environment, causing significant harm to Sargent’s emotional well-being.

Defense

SOC denied the allegations and claimed its decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. It argued that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by statutes of limitations, estoppel, waiver, or after-acquired evidence. Defendant stated it took prompt remedial action, complied with laws, and did not act with malice. It also claimed Plaintiff failed to use internal policies for addressing concerns and that any unlawful conduct by employees was outside the scope of employment.

Jury Verdict

On January 24, 2025, the jury found that Sargent did not prove her sex was a direct cause of SOC’s decision to terminate her employment. Additionally, the jury concluded that Sargent did not prove her September 14, 2017, letter to HR was a direct cause of her termination. However, the jury determined that Sargent did prove SOC was liable for subjecting her to a hostile work environment based on her sex.

The jury did not find in favor of Sargent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Sargent proved that, for the Title VII claims where SOC was found liable, a SOC management official acted with malice or reckless disregard for Sargent’s federally protected rights. SOC failed to prove that it made a good-faith effort to comply with Title VII in all instances where it was found liable to comply with the law by adopting effective policies to prevent and address unlawful discrimination like that suffered by Sargent.

The jury awarded Sargent $225,000 as compensatory damages for the violation of her Title VII right and $1.6 million in punitive damages for the hostile work environment. The verdict came up to $1,825,000.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com