Adeyemi v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. ELH-19-3207 |
| Parties | JAMES ADEYEMI, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
In this employment discrimination case, the self-represented plaintiff, James Adeyemi, who is deaf, filed a "Complaint of Defamation and Retaliation" against his former employer, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS"). ECF 1 ("Complaint"). The Complaint, which is accompanied by 29 exhibits, seems to assert two claims against defendant DPSCS: defamation, under Maryland law, and retaliation, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). ECF 1 at 2. Adeyemi seeks "compulsory damage and [recovery for] financial loss." Id.
Although the Complaint is difficult to decipher, it appears that plaintiff's retaliation claim is predicated on his non-selection for a job position with DPSCS. See ADA, Title V, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).1 In particular, plaintiff alleges that DPSCS retaliated against him after he complained about being discriminated against during the hiring process. And, he alleges that DPSCS retaliatedagainst him by refusing to verify his prior employment with DPSCS for prospective employers. ECF 1 at 14.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. ECF 12. The motion is support by a memorandum (ECF 12-1) (collectively, the "Motion") and thirteen exhibits. According to DPSCS, plaintiff's ADA claim is barred by the State's entitlement to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. ECF 21-1 at 8-11. As to the defamation claim, DPSCS contends that plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Maryland Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"), Md. Code , §§ 12-101 et seq. of the State Government Article ("S.G."). Id. at 12-15. Alternatively, defendant urges the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regard to the State law defamation claim. Id. at 11-12.
Adeyemi opposes the Motion (ECF 15) and has submitted two additional exhibits. Defendant has not replied and the time to do so has expired.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.
Plaintiff was a contract employee with DPSCS. On April 4, 2014, Adeyemi entered into an agreement with DPSCS's Police and Correctional Training Commissions ("PCTC") to begin work as an "IT Programmer Analyst Lead/Advanced." ECF 1 at 3; ECF 12-3 (EmploymentContract). Plaintiff continued working for PCTC until he resigned on November 17, 2015. ECF 1 at 3.3 Plaintiff claims that he resigned because he was discriminated against for being deaf. Id.
On January 13, 2017, DPSCS posted a job vacancy announcement for "Administrator VI: Technical Services Administrator" at PCTC. ECF 1 at 4; see ECF 12-8 (Job Posting). Plaintiff applied for this position and was notified on January 23, 2017, that he was selected for an interview. See ECF 12-9 (Interview Notification). But, Adeyemi complains that during the interview for this position he was not given "a paper of questions for [the] interview" and he "noticed the interpreter translated very late," which made him suspect "that the interpreter might not be certified." ECF 1 at 4.
Several months later, on May 11, 2017, plaintiff was notified that he was not selected for the position. Id.; see ECF 12-10 (Rejection Letter). Adeyemi claims that the recruiter told him that the decision was based on the interview scores rather than the individual's educational background or work experience. ECF 1 at 4.
Thereafter, on July 10, 2017, plaintiff contacted the Executive Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity ("OEO") at DPSCS to complain that he was discriminated against during the interview and recruitment process for the Technical Services Administrator position. ECF 1 at 5; see ECF 12-11 (Email from Adeyemi to DPSCS). By letter of the same date, the Executive Director of DPSCS responded to Adeyemi's complaint. See ECF 1-4. The letter summarized plaintiff's stated complaints: "[Y]ou stated that you were discriminated against because your education was not taken into consideration when another candidate was selected [and you] alleged that the selection of the other candidate was only based on the oral interview for which you weresubstantially limited based on the fact that you are deaf and the sign language interpreter that assisted you during the interview was not certified...." Id. at 1. In response to those complaints, the letter explained that the interpreter was "certified" and a college degree "was not a requirement in order to qualify for the position," so education did not have to be taken into consideration. Id. at 1-2. Further, the letter advised Adeyemi of his right to file a complaint of discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id. at 2.
The following day, plaintiff contacted OEO again, stating that he was "afraid of applying for any job at DPSCS" and he was "tired of everyone get[ting] away with hurting [his] job opportunit[ies]" and "abus[ing] [him] at work." ECF 12-13 at 1. But, he said that he was still "willing to go through" with an interview that DPSCS had previously offered him for another IT programmer position. Id.4
Thereafter, throughout 2018, plaintiff applied for numerous positions at DPSCS, as well as the Maryland Office of the Comptroller, and Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services. See, e.g., ECF 1-7; ECF 1-11; ECF 1-17. According to Adeyemi, he was not selected for these positions because his DPSCS employment references "refus[ed] to verify" his past employment as part of their retaliation against him. ECF 1 at 14.
In June 2019, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against DPSCS, alleging retaliation between November 2018 and March 2019. See ECF 1-25. In the Charge, Adeyemi stated, id. at 1: Further, he stated, id.: "I believe that I have been discriminated against in retaliation for engaging in protected activity...."
With respect to the ADA, defendant has moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DPSCS contends that plaintiff's ADA claim is barred by sovereign immunity. And, DPSCS claims that the State law defamation claim is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with the MTCA. Alternatively, defendant urges the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the State law claim.
District courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess "'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'" Gunn v. Minton, 586 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)); see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Simply put, if Congress or the Constitution "has not empowered the federal judiciary to hear a matter, then the case must be dismissed." Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) () (citation omitted).
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the plaintiff's suit. Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Demetres v. E. W. Const., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015); see also The Piney Run Preservation Ass'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cty., 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2008); Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). However, a court should grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) "'only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.'" B.F. Perkins, 166 F.3d at 647 (citation omitted).
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may proceed "in one of two ways": either a facial challenge or a factual challenge. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009); accord Hutton v. Nat'l Bd. of Exam'rs Inc., 892 F.3d 613, 620-21 (4th Cir. 2018). In a facial challenge, "the defendant must show that a complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject-matter jurisdiction can be predicated." Hutton, 892 F.3d at 621 n.7 (citing Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2017)); see also Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192. Alternatively, in a factual challenge, "the defendant maintains that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint are not true." Hutton, 892 F.3d at 621 n.7 (citing Beck, 848 F.3d at 270). In that circumstance, the court "may regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Velasco v. Gov't of Indonesia, 370 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Beck, 848 F.3d at 270; In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2014); Evans, 166 F.3d at 647.
Sovereign immunity is "a weighty...
To continue reading
Request your trial