Akinjide v. Univ. of Maryland Eastern Shore
| Decision Date | 13 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. DKC 09-2595 |
| Parties | OLUGESUN E. AKINJIDE v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination action is an unopposed motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants University of Maryland Eastern Shore ("UMES"), Dr. Ronnie Holden, and Mr. Leon Bivens. (ECF No. 22). The relevant issues have been briefed, and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion will be granted.
For purposes of this decision, the following facts are uncontroverted unless otherwise stated.
In 1990, Plaintiff Olugesun Akinjide, a black male born in Nigeria and subsequently naturalized as an American citizen, started his career at UMES as an engineer in the Physical Plantwith a salary of $31,000. (ECF No. 22-4, at 4).1 At that time, he held a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Tuskegee University. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Holden - an African-American male, Vice President of Administrative Affairs at UMES, and the person primarily responsible for its personnel actions - denied him salary increases from 1992 to 1995, even though several other employees, such as Dr. Maurice Ngwaba - a Nigerian male who, like Plaintiff, later became an American citizen - received raises during this time. (Id. at 5; ECF No. 22-1, at 20). Dr. Holden asserts that Plaintiff did not receive salary increases from 1991 to 1993 due to a coding error in the payroll department's internal system. (ECF No. 22-8, Holden Decl., ¶ 8).2 From 1993 to 1996, Mr. Bivens and Mr. Lunnermon, both African-American males employed by UMES, received promotions and salary increases even though Plaintiff'spromotion and pay raise requests during this period were denied. (ECF No. 22-4, at 5-6; ECF No. 22-1, at 20; ECF No. 22-9, Holden Dep., at 72).
The Physical Plant personnel, including Plaintiff, complained about these promotions to Dr. Holden, and they were subsequently restructured into two groups in 1997: (1) Facilities and Operations, headed by Dr. Ngwaba, and (2) Physical Plant, headed by Mr. Lunnermon. (ECF No. 22-4, at 6-7). All engineering staff reported to Dr. Ngwaba. (Id. at 7). The restructuring was not long-lived; less than two years later, all Plant personnel were recombined, and Plaintiff's title was changed from Senior Engineer to Construction Electrical Engineer. (Id.). When Plaintiff earned a Master's degree in 2000, he requested both a promotion and a salary increase, but Dr. Holden denied this request. (Id.). The following year, Plaintiff had to absorb additional job responsibilities, without a change in title or pay, when UMES's mechanical engineer died suddenly. (Id.). Although UMES eventually advertised the mechanical engineer position in 2003 and 2004, Dr. Holden decided not to conduct interviews because there were not enough candidates, and Plaintiff continued to perform these additional duties. (Id. at 7-8).
Around Mr. Lunnermon's retirement in 2004, Dr. Holden promoted Dr. Ngwaba, Mr. Bivens, and Plaintiff. Dr. Ngwaba became Director of Physical Plant, while Mr. Bivens became its Associate Director and Plaintiff its Interim Assistant Director. (Id. at 8; ECF No. 22-9, at 49). Plaintiff received a merit increase of $1,200 for assuming this position, while Mr. Bivens allegedly received a significantly greater increase. (ECF No. 22-4, at 8). Plaintiff continued to perform the functions of mechanical engineer as part of his role as Interim Assistant Director. (Id. at 8-9). An external committee held interviews for the mechanical engineer position from 2005 to 2006, but Dr. Holden ultimately declined to hire any of the candidates recommended by the committee. (Id. at 8).
From 2005 to 2008, after earning a doctorate degree, Plaintiff requested that Dr. Holden promote him by making permanent his interim appointment to Assistant Director, but Dr. Holden denied this request. (Id. at 8-9). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bivens and unspecified "others like Mr. Bivens" did receive promotions and accompanying pay raises during this time. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff asserts that these repeated denials violated UMES policy, which permits an employee to hold an interim position for only two years. (Id.). Plaintiff found himself overwhelmed by his job responsibilities in October 2007and met with Dr. Holden to discuss a pay raise or workload reduction, but Dr. Holden denied these requests. (Id. at 9). Around this time, Plaintiff sought medical care for fatigue and depression that he was experiencing due to his multiple responsibilities at UMES. (Id.).
At a Physical Plant meeting early in 2008, Plaintiff informed Dr. Ngwaba that he could no longer perform his current job responsibilities without another pay increase. (Id. at 10). Dr. Ngwaba reported this complaint to Dr. Holden, but Dr. Holden took no action. (Id.). In June 2008, Dr. Holden transferred Dr. Ngwaba to the position of Assistant to the Vice President for Administrative Affairs and Director of Planning, Facilities, and Construction (ECF No. 22-8 ¶ 11), a move characterized by Plaintiff as a demotion and by Dr. Holden as a promotion (ECF No. 22-4, at 8; ECF No. 22-8 ¶ 11). Dr. Holden then selected Mr. Bivens as Director of Physical Plant. (ECF No. 22-4, at 10).
Before his transfer, Dr. Ngwaba instructed the Operations Department to correct certain deficiencies in UMES's facilities that had been identified by a thermal scan. (ECF No. 22-4, at 10). Plaintiff worked to repair the deficiencies following the transfer and, in June or July 2008, he had a dispute with Mr. Bivens about his handling of the deficiencies. (Id. at 11).According to Plaintiff, Mr. Bivens came to his work site, described himself as the "Biblical Pharaoh ordering the Israelites to make bricks with no straw," and instructed Plaintiff to find a way to repair the deficiencies that did not require assistance from other UMES personnel. (Id.). Mr. Bivens also allegedly stated "one down and one more to go," in an apparent reference to the fact that Dr. Ngwaba had been transferred. (Id.). Plaintiff contacted an outside company to repair the deficiencies and reported the incident to Dr. Holden, who "supported Mr. Bivens." (Id.).
A second dispute arose between Plaintiff and Mr. Bivens in early August 2008. When a UMES transformer lost power, Mr. Bivens ordered a contractor to restore the transformer's power immediately, even though, according to Plaintiff, doing so would have injured both UMES personnel and facilities. (Id. ¶ 41). The transformer failed, and a new transformer was ordered and scheduled for delivery on August 5, 2008. (Id. at 11-12). The new transformer could not be tested until August 11, 2008, and Mr. Bivens came to Plaintiff's office that morning to demand the test report. (Id. at 12). Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Bivens "threatened, bullied, harassed, and insulted" him in front of other UMES staff, told him to "turn over the test report . . . [or Mr. Bivens would] show [Plaintiff] who the boss [was]," andsent him an insulting email. (Id.). Plaintiff allegedly reported this dispute to Dr. Holden, describing Mr. Bivens's actions as "mistreatment, harassment, intimidation, [and an] unhealthy and hostile work environment," but Dr. Holden once again "supported Mr. Bivens." (Id.). Dr. Holden maintains that Plaintiff never complained to him regarding any form of discrimination during his employment at UMES. (ECF No. 22-8 ¶ 18).3
Plaintiff submitted his resignation on August 18, 2008, and took leave most of the following two weeks. (ECF No. 22-12). Plaintiff resigned his employment with UMES on September 2, 2008. (Id.). At that time, he was earning an annual salary of approximately $80,000. (ECF No. 22-8 ¶ 9).
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about June 1, 2009. In that complaint, he alleged that he had suffered discrimination on the basis of race and national origin and that he had faced retaliation "for engaging in protected activity." (ECF No. 22-4, at 3). The EEOC mailedPlaintiff a right-to-sue letter on July 9, 2009. (ECF No. 22-5).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on October 2, 2009, naming UMES, Dr. Holden, and Mr. Bivens as Defendants (ECF No. 1). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin as well as retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("Equal Pay Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). (ECF No. 1).4 Defendants answered the complaint (ECF No. 4), and a scheduling order was issued on October 30, 2009 (ECF No. 5). Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment on March 24, 2011 (ECF No. 22), which Plaintiff has not opposed.
A court may enter summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986);Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is inappropriate if any material factual issue "may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff's lack of opposition means that Defendants' arguments remain uncontested, and the court must assume that Defendants' characterization of the complaint is correct.
Defendants present a series of arguments in their unopposed motion for summary judgment: (1) that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars all of Plaintiff's claims against UMES; (2) that Plaintiff's claims for...
To continue reading
Request your trial