Suppi Construction, Inc. v. Melissa R. Sadowski

── Suppi Construction, Inc. v. Melissa R. Sadowski ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SUPPI CONSTRUCTION, INC., § § No. 108, 2026 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N22C-11-149 MELISSA R. SADOWSKI, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: March 9, 2026 Decided: May 14, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the notice of appeal from an interlocutory order and its exhibits, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 14, 2022, Melissa Sadowski filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging that Suppi Construction, Inc. (“SCI”) had engaged in gender discrimination during the 2021 calendar year.1 Days later, Sadowski amended the charge to include the Delaware Department of Labor (the “DDOL”) and alleged that SCI had engaged in gender discrimination and retaliation between August 15, 2021, and August 24, 1 The parties dispute whether Sadowski was an employee of SCI or an independent contractor. 2021. The EEOC issued Sadowski a right-to-sue notice on August 18, 2022. On November 16, 2022, Sadowski filed suit against SCI and one of its founders, Carl Suppi (together with SCI, “Defendants”), in the Superior Court. After the DDOL issued Sadowski a right-to-sue notice on February 27, 2023, Sadowski amended her complaint. As amended, Sadowski’s complaint set forth seven causes of action, including gender discrimination and retaliation under the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (the “DDEA”) against SCI. (2) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other things, that Sadowski had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the DDEA and that Sadowski’s complaint otherwise failed to state a claim. On November 30, 2023, the Superior Court partially denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss (the “MTD Decision”).2 Relevant here, the court found that Sadowski’s amended complaint “support[ed] a reasonable inference that Sadowski dually filed the Amended Charge with the DDOL [and the EEOC] because it allege[d] that she received a DDOL Right to Sue Letter.”3 The court therefore found that Sadowski had exhausted her administrative remedies under the DDEA. The court also held that Sadowski’s complaint had sufficiently pleaded claims for gender discrimination and retaliation under the DDEA. SCI did not ask the Superior Court to certify an 2 Sadowski v. Suppi Constr., Inc., 2023 WL 8282052 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2023). 3 Id. at *5. 2 interlocutory appeal of the MTD Decision or file a notice of appeal of the MTD Decision in this Court. (3) After discovery closed, Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Sadowski had failed to show that SCI had engaged in gender discrimination because she had “failed to put forth any similarly situated males that were treated more favorably than her”4 and that Sadowski was unable to show that SCI’s stated reason for removing Sadowski from the workplace was pretextual under the McDonell-Douglas burden-shifting framework.5 On February 5, 2026, the court partially denied SCI’s motion in a bench ruling (the “MSJ Ruling”). Relevant here, the court noted that “the fact that there may be no suitable comparator does not afford the … employer carte blanche to discriminate, and Mr.