Adebusoye v. Prince George's Cnty.
| Docket Number | PWG-18-0153 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 2021 |
| Parties | ADEBAYO ADEBUSOYE, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Adebayo Adebusoye, through counsel, filed suit against his former employer, Prince George's County, Maryland (“the County”), alleging discrimination and retaliation based on his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) et seq. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25-35, ECF No. 15. The County filed a dismissal motion, which I granted in part by dismissing Plaintiff's retaliation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Mem. Op. 2, ECF No. 21. The case proceeded with discovery on Plaintiff's claim of discrimination, and the County now seeks summary judgment. Mot., ECF No. 63. I have reviewed the filings[1] and find a hearing unnecessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md 2021). Because a genuine dispute exists as to material facts related to Plaintiff's discrimination claim, as discussed below, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
BACKGROUND[2]
Plaintiff is a Nigerian born, American citizen who began working with the Prince George's County Department of Corrections (“DOC”) on October 30, 2008 and was employed by the County through February 17, 2012, as a Correctional Officer. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, 10. Plaintiff was assigned to the medical unit and was responsible for distributing meals to the detainees housed in the unit. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.
On June 20, 2011, Plaintiff was distributing meals to the inmates housed in the medical unit. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff attempted to distribute a meal to Brandon Bianco (“the detainee”), who had recently been moved to the medical unit. Id. The detainee was housed in the medical unit for psychotic episodes and had been transferred on “suicide watch.” Id. ¶ 22. The detainee had a history of hostile and unsafe interactions with employees at the DOC. Id. When Plaintiff opened the detainee's cell door, Plaintiff alleges that the detainee advanced towards him “in an aggressive manner.” Id. ¶¶ 20-22. Plaintiff then entered the cell, and the cell door locked behind him. Mot. Ex. 1, Adebusoye Dep. 19:5-14, ECF No. 63-4. Plaintiff states that he does not recall what the detainee said or did nor could he recall what his partner was doing. Id 18:4-21:20; 41:1-43:20. Plaintiff testified that he feared for his safety and called over the radio for assistance. Id. at 20:9- 16.
Plaintiff struck, pushed, punched, and kicked the detainee several times, and pulled him off the bunk bed, as the disturbing security camera footage (“the footage”) depicts. Mot. Ex. 9, Video Tape of the Incident, ECF No. 63-13. The footage does not show the detainee ever making any physical contact with the Plaintiff. Id. Rather, the footage shows the detainee lying on the floor of his cell trying to defend himself and curled up in the fetal position. Id. Several other officers responded to the incident. Mot. Ex. 1, 23:9-10; 25:8-11; Mot. Mem. 6, ECF No. 63-1. One of the officers, Lt. Avery Johnson, worked in the medical unit, and after the incident was over, he noted that the detainee suffered from bruises. Mot. Mem. 6. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff was charged with excessive force and faced termination.
All DOC employees facing termination are given an option of proceeding to an Administrative Hearing or accepting the proposed sanction. Mot. Ex. 3, McDonough Dep. 20:1- 14, ECF No. 63-6. At Plaintiff's hearing, the Administrative Hearing Board (“AHB”) found Plaintiff guilty as charged and recommended sanctions including (1) a demotion in rank and pay, and (2) a suspension without pay. Mot. Ex. 3.33, Recommendation and Report of the AHB, Feb. 8, 2012. The AHB's recommendation was subject to the approval of Director Mary Lou McDonough. McDonough Dep. 50:11-51:7. Director McDonough subsequently rejected the AHB's recommendation and imposed a sanction of termination, effective February 17, 2021, because the inmate was injured and required medical treatment due to being punched and kicked more than 27 times, yanked out of his bunk bed, and thrown on the floor. Id. at 52:1-55:21; 63:14- 65:22, 165:14-19; Mot. Ex. 3.5, Final Notice of Disciplinary Action, Feb. 16, 2012. Director McDonough believed Plaintiff never showed any remorse, nor did he admit any wrongdoing or fault for his actions, and any verbal threats made towards Correctional Officers does not justify taking physical action against inmates. Id. This sanction was imposed in accordance with Subtitle 16 of the Prince George's County Code, and in accordance with DOC Policies and Procedures. Id. at 26:1- 27:27:22; Mot. Ex. 3.1, Subtitle 16 of the PGCC; Mot. Ex. 3.2, DOC Policies and Procedures, Discipline.
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on February 28, 2012. Mot. Ex. 6, Docket Report for CAL 12-06148, ECF No. 63-9. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County affirmed the decision of the Director and upheld Plaintiff's termination on August 29, 2012. Id. Although Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Circuit Court to the Court of Special Appeals, that appeal was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff, and no action is currently pending in any of the state courts. Id.
On or about February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff completed an Intake Questionnaire to pursue a charge alleging discrimination based on national origin before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Am. Compl. ¶ 12. On or about February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff signed a formal charge generated by the EEOC, summarizing the Plaintiff's allegations, and charging the Defendant with discriminating against the Plaintiff based on national origin. Id. at ¶ 13. On June 29, 2017, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination upon finding that the County violated Title VII based on Plaintiff's discriminatory discipline claim. Id. In its letter, the EEOC only noted that one comparator, Donald West, may have been treated more favorably than the Plaintiff. Id. On or about November 24, 2017, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue regarding Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination. Id. at ¶ 16.
Donald West is an African American male. Mot. Ex. 3.7, Comparator Chart Submitted to the EEOC. Donald West was charged with excessive force for punching an inmate one time, and a recommendation was made for his demotion. Mot. Ex. 3.8, Initial Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, West. West did not proceed to a hearing because he accepted summary punishment, and thus, that was his final disciplinary action. Mot. Ex. 3, McDonough Dep. 68:10- 16; 71:11-72:20; 209:1-21. Plaintiff's comparators also included Jermaine Gordon, Corey Yancey, both African American males, and Richard Lehnan, a Caucasian male. Mot. Ex. 3.7, Comparator Chart.
Defendant includes another comparator, Timothy Olupona, as someone noted by Plaintiff after his Charge of Discrimination was filed with the EEOC. Olupona was of Nigerian descent, like the Plaintiff and had several allegations of excessive force lodged against him. Mot. Ex. 3.20, Initial Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, Olupona, Aug. 23, 2014; Mot. Ex. 3.22, Final Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, Olupona; Mot. Ex. 3.21, Initial Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, Olupona, Feb. 3, 2014; Mot. Ex. 3.23, Final Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, Olupona; Mot. Ex. 3.24, Amended Initial Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, Olupona; Mot. Ex. 3.25, Final Notice of Conduct Related Disciplinary Action, Olupona. Olupona was not terminated since he retired from County service and accepted responsibility for his actions. Mot. Mem. 18; McDonough Dep., 166:1-11. Plaintiff asserts that he did not cite Olupona as a comparator because Olupona is African-born and within the same protected class. Resp. 8. But Plaintiff contends that there are an additional nine comparators that were less severely disciplined. Id. at 8-10.
This case was filed on January 17, 2018. Compl., ECF No. 1. In this action, Plaintiff asserted employment discrimination by the County and retaliation for bringing a claim. Id. After a status conference with the parties, I granted Plaintiff's leave to file an Amended Complaint, and it was filed on April 11, 2018. See ECF Nos. 14, 15. In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged a claim for disparate treatment based on national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) et seq. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25-35. In Count II of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged a claim for retaliation in violation of Title VII. Id. ¶¶ 36-45.
The County filed a Motion to Dismiss, and I issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Count II of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21. I noted that Plaintiffs termination was lawfully based on his use of excessive force. Id. at 18. However, I left open the question of whether the sanction of termination imposed on Plaintiff was motivated by discriminatory animus, while other correctional officers outside his protected class who committed similar acts were retained. Id. The County's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 63, is now ripe for decision.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides for judgment in favor of the movant “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In reviewing the evidence related to a motion for summary judgment, the Court considers undisputed facts, as well as the disputed facts viewed in the light most favorable...
To continue reading
Request your trial