Hyuna Lee V Korea Innovation Center Et Al

Key Facts

Issues

• The Court dismissed the VWPA claim against Sihoon, holding he is not an employer under Virginia law but merely a supervisor.
• The Court dismissed the IIED claim, finding the defendant's conduct (e.g., verbal criticism) insufficiently 'outrageous' to satisfy Virginia law.
• The Court determined that the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) is immune from suit under the FSIA because its activities in the U.S. (e.g., promoting research collaborations) constitute sovereign functions, not commercial activity. Claims against NRF were dismissed.
• The Court found the plaintiff's pay disparity claim (lower pay compared to her male predecessor for the same role) sufficient to proceed under Title VII, but dismissed other disparate treatment allegations (e.g., workplace criticism, exclusion from meetings) as insufficient to establish gender-based adverse employment actions.
• The Court found the plaintiff's EPA claim viable, as she alleged her predecessor (a male) performed the same role at a significantly higher salary.
• The Court dismissed the vicarious liability count as the underlying IIED claim was already dismissed.
• The Court dismissed the plaintiff's hostile work environment claims under Title VII and VHRA, finding the conduct (e.g., verbal reprimands, lack of support) insufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions.
• The Court held that the plaintiff's retaliation claims (based on protected activity and subsequent adverse actions) were plausible, allowing them to proceed against remaining defendants.
• The Court allowed the VEPA claim to proceed, noting that Rule 8 permits alternative theories even if inconsistent with FLSA allegations.

Holdings

• The Court granted Defendant National Research Foundation of Korea's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20) and terminated NRF as a defendant in the case without leave to amend.
• Plaintiff may file one further amended complaint on or before April 3, 2026, except with respect to claims against National Research Foundation of Korea under the FSIA.
• Defendant Korea Innovation Center's Motion (Dkt. 23) was granted-in-part and denied-in-part, as was Defendant Korea-U.S. Science Cooperation Center's Motion (Dkt. 26).
• Count 11 was dismissed as to Defendant Sihoon Ryu.
• The Amended Complaint was dismissed as to National Research Foundation of Korea only, and Counts 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 were dismissed without prejudice.
• Counts 1 and 5 were dismissed without prejudice except to the extent they are based on a theory of pay disparity.

Remedies

• Counts 1 and 5 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE except to the extent they are based on a theory of pay disparity.
• The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as to Defendant National Research Foundation of Korea only and Defendant National Research Foundation of Korea is TERMINATED as a defendant in this case, without leave to amend.
• Plaintiff may file one further amended complaint on or before Friday, April 3, 2026, except with respect to any claims as to Defendant National Research Foundation of Korea against which claims cannot be asserted under the FSIA.
• Count 11 is DISMISSED as to Defendant Sihoon Ryu.
• Counts 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Legal Principles

• The court found that the National Research Foundation of Korea is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because its activities in the U.S. are sovereign in nature, not commercial, and thus the exception for commercial activities does not apply.
• The vicarious liability claim was dismissed because the underlying IIED claim was dismissed.
• The court dismissed the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim as the defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold of being outrageous and intolerable.
• The court found sufficient allegations of retaliation under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act to proceed.
• The court upheld the Equal Pay Act claim as the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a pay disparity for the same role as her predecessor.
• The hostile work environment claims were dismissed for not meeting the severity and pervasiveness standard required by Virginia and federal law.

Precedent Name

• Adams v. Bain
• Salman v. Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission
• E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc.
• Moschetti v. Off. of the Inspector Gen.
• Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.
• Cornell v. Benedict
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal
• Kato v. Ishihara
• Harris v. Kreutzer
• Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson
• Harris v. Forklift Sys.
• Womack v. Eldridge
• Best Med. Belg., Inc. v. Kingdom of Belg.
• McCarty v. City of Alexandria
• Rose-Stanley v. Virginia
• Brinkley-Obu v. Hughes Training, Inc.
• Saudi Arabia v. Nelson
• Burgess v. Bowen
• Russo v. White
• United States v. Hays

Cited Statute

• Virginia Equal Pay Act (VEPA)
• Virginia Overtime Wage Act (VOWA)
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
• Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Equal Pay Act (EPA)
• Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act (VWPA)
• Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA)

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over NRF because it is immune from suit under the FSIA.
• Plaintiff's IIED claim will be dismissed.
• Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act.