A dispute involving an employee of the Community College of Vermont (CCV) is set to reach a critical juncture. On November 17, at 9 a.m., the Rutland County Civil Court will convene for a motion hearing in the case of Tammy Howard Davis, a 58-year-old student advising coordinator who has brought a discrimination lawsuit against the Vermont State Colleges (VSC) system.
The litigation, which first hit the court docket on June 11, 2025, details a series of allegations. Howard Davis alleges she was subjected to persistent harassment based on her age, sex, disability, ancestry, and religion. These claims involve specific accusations of misconduct by coworkers that Howard Davis claims went unaddressed by her superiors.
The Allegations of Workplace Hostility
Central to the lawsuit are claims of religious and ancestral harassment. Howard Davis alleges that coworkers made inflammatory remarks, including telling a pregnant colleague to “just kill it” and performing exaggerated signs of the cross in her presence. The filing describes a pattern of ethnic harassment, where the plaintiff was repeatedly referred to as “T-Bones”—a moniker she equates to the name of a gang member—while facing insinuations that her Italian heritage linked her to the mafia or a criminal.
When these issues were brought to the attention of supervisors in February 2024, Howard Davis claims that no disciplinary measures were taken. The Vermont State Colleges system has formally responded to these allegations, confirming that a meeting with supervisors took place but denying the remainder of the accusations. Regarding the lack of disciplinary action, the VSC stated it is “without knowledge to admit or deny” the plaintiff’s characterization of the aftermath.
The case also touches upon facility management and accessibility. Howard Davis contends that the Rutland campus has failed to address a broken ramp. The VSC’s defense points to a jurisdictional divide: the institution does not own the building. “Plaintiff is aware because of her litigation against the builder and the landlord of the CCV property,” the VSC stated in its filing, noting that only one formal request for accommodation was made in January 2024, contradicting the plaintiff’s assertion that “numerous” requests were ignored.
Retaliation and the Burden of Proof
The lawsuit highlights the professional toll taken on Howard Davis. She alleges that she faced retaliation after reporting the harassment, specifically citing being asked to go part-time, the denial of an opportunity to teach a course starting in January 2025, and issues regarding her health insurance coverage for a certain medication.
The VSC has pushed back against these claims as well, asserting that it had no role in the insurance coverage decisions made by Cigna. In its response, the college system maintained, “(VSC) admits it assisted Plaintiff in resolving the issues with Cigna to the extent it was able to,” while denying that it possessed any influence over the insurer’s final determinations. The college also denies any connection between the plaintiff’s complaints and the decision not to assign her a teaching role.
With Howard Davis seeking back and front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, pre-judgment interest and such other relief the court may deem necessary and appropriate, the stakes for both the individual and the state college system are substantial. The court's decision will depend on how it weighs the plaintiff’s claims against the institution’s defense that it lacked the authority or the knowledge to intervene in many of the cited incidents.
