Bozarth v. Md. State Dep't of Educ.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: DLB-19-3615 |
| Parties | REBECCA BOZARTH, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Rebecca Bozarth, an employee of the Maryland State Department of Education ("MSDE") and the State of Maryland (collectively, the "State"), alleges the State discriminated against her on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and religion. The State partially moved to dismiss Ms. Bozarth's claims. Because the Eleventh Amendment bars Ms. Bozarth's claims arising under the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), those claims are dismissed. Because Ms. Bozarth failed to plausibly plead discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion, those claims are dismissed. Finally, because Ms. Bozarth adequately stated a claim for disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504") and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act ("MFEPA"), the State's motion to dismiss as to those claims is denied.
Ms. Bozarth is a heterosexual, Jewish female with a disability. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27 & 38,ECF 26. Ms. Bozarth began working for the MSDE on May 30, 2012. Id. ¶ 10. She was hired as a "Child Care Licensing Specialist in the Skilled Service with the Division of Early Childhood Development Office of Child Care." Id. ¶ 11. She worked out of the MSDE Office of Child Care ("OCC") Region 12 in Frederick County. Id. ¶ 22. In that position, Ms. Bozarth was "responsible for overseeing a list of child care facilities, including, but not limited to[,] child care centers and family child care homes. Id. ¶ 16. Her day-to-day activities include "ensuring proper background checks on child care personnel, ensuring facilities meet background and training requirements, responding to family complaints[,] and conducting inspections of facilities." Id. ¶ 17. Up until June 2018, Ms. Bozarth "never received anything less than an outstanding performance evaluation." Id. ¶ 103. Additionally, up until September 2018, Ms. Bozarth "never received any written negative counseling, write-up, discipline[,] or similar negative feedback" about her job performance. Id. ¶ 104. She "was considered an employee [who] 'got stuff done . . .'" and was even "told that she needed to slow the pace of her work product because 'she was a state employee and state employees don't work at that pace' or words to this effect." Id. ¶¶ 105-06.
Ms. Bozarth's direct supervisor is Kathy Long, who reports to Dolores Harmon. Id. ¶¶ 41-42. Ms. Harmon is the regional manager overseeing Regions 7 and 12. Id. ¶ 18. Jennifer Nizer, who is the Director of the OCC, "is in the supervisory chain of Ms. Harmon and Ms. Long." Id. ¶¶ 80-81. Finally, Lou Valenti is the Branch Chief. Id. ¶ 84. Her supervisors were aware of each of these aspects of her identity. Id. ¶¶ 38, 21, 57, 61, 64, 83. Ms. Bozarth alleges her Region 12 managers have formed a "clique." Id. ¶¶ 23, 54, 82. It is not clear whether Mr. Valenti is in the "clique." Included in the "clique," however, is "Employee S," who is a lesbian, female secretary in Region 12. Id. ¶ 24. Ms. Bozarth asserts that "more than one member of [her] supervisory chain that [is involved in this case] are homosexual." Id. ¶ 115.
Around June 2018, Employee S "determined that she no longer wanted to remain friendly with [Ms. Bozarth] and her coworkers"—all of whom are heterosexual. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. At this time, "Employee S cleaned out her office, refused to talk to [Ms. Bozarth] and her coworkers[,] and made day-to-day work inside [the] Region 12 office extremely difficult." Id. ¶ 50. Ms. Bozarth claims that after she and her coworkers alerted Ms. Long of Employee S's "odd and disruptive behavior," Ms. Long and Ms. Harmon "showed favoritism to Employee S" by taking Employee S's "side" and showed "animus towards [Ms. Bozarth]" due to Employee S's sexual orientation or membership in the clique and Ms. Bozarth's heterosexuality. Id. ¶¶ 52-62.
Ms. Bozarth alleges that her supervisor, Ms. Harmon, "would lead Region 12 and Region 7 employees in inappropriate workplace prayers." Id. ¶ 35. Ms. Bozarth alleges "Ms. Harmon led employs in saying 'grace' before meals" at Region 12 and 7 outings, and that grace "is a Christian religious custom." Id. ¶¶ 35-36. Ms. Bozarth does not further specify whether or when prayers were said during a normal workday. Another employee who is a Jehova's Witness "told Ms. Harmon that she would not be participating in the group parties because . . . the Jehova's [W]itness faith does not recognize holidays." Id. ¶ 37. "Ms. Harmon told the employee that the parties were mandatory." Id.
Ms. Bozarth "suffers from neurological Lyme disease and associated medical issues, including an anxiety disorder." Id. ¶ 65. In August 2018, Ms. Harmon planned a Region 12 office gathering at which no work was scheduled to be completed and attendance to which "was not an essential function of [Ms. Bozarth's] position." Id. ¶¶ 68-69, 74. Ms. Bozarth was aware at this time that Ms. Long had "made disparaging remarks about [another employee's] disability." Id. ¶ 71. About two weeks prior to the event, which was to take place on August 30, 2018, Ms. Bozarth verbally notified Ms. Harmon that her disability precluded her attendance at the gathering.Id. ¶¶ 69-70, 72. Ms. Bozarth does not specify what about her disability prevented her from attending the gathering. Ms. Harmon denied the request, told Ms. Bozarth her attendance was mandatory, and "also told [Ms. Bozarth] she must submit medical documentation before making any decision." Id. ¶ 73. Ms. Bozarth complained to the human resources department ("HR") "that Ms. Harmon denied her request for a reasonable accommodation." Id. ¶ 76. HR requested a doctor's note explaining the medical necessity of her absence, which Ms. Bozarth provided. Id. ¶¶ 77-78. Ms. Bozarth does not specifically state whether she ultimately attended the gathering.
On September 8, 2018, Ms. Bozarth aired numerous grievances to Ms. Nizer. Id. ¶ 83. Ms. Bozarth complained "that the supervisor led employees to say 'Grace' at [d]efendants' parties and that another employee, who claimed a religious exemption, was initially required to attend in violation of federal and state employment laws." Id. ¶¶ 81-83. Further, she complained "about her being denied a reasonable accommodation, the issues with Ms. Harmon[,] and issues related to [Employee S]." Id. ¶ 83. Ms. Bozarth subsequently was told she would have a meeting with Ms. Nizer and Mr. Valenti, the purpose of which "was to address the issues raised by [Ms. Bozarth.]" Id. ¶ 84.
The meeting, which took place on September 24, 2018, was not what Ms. Bozarth expected. Both "Ms. Nizer and Mr. Valenti made accusatory remarks about [Ms. Bozarth's] treatment of [Employee S]." Id. ¶ 86. Two days after this meeting, Ms. Long wrote up Ms. Bozarth "for allegedly starting an issue with [Employee S] regarding 'file [folders]'. . . [and] falsely accused [Ms. Bozarth] of treating [Employee S] poorly and of having a 'behavior/[attitude] issue' toward [Employee S]." Id. ¶¶ 87, 90. Ms. Bozarth claims she "did not start any issues with [Employee S]." Id. ¶ 89. "Instead, [Employee S] was the one instigating issues with [Ms.Bozarth]." Id.
On the morning of September 27, 2018, and after having been written up, Ms. Bozarth sent an email to her supervisors, Ms. Long and Ms. Harmon, in which she "complained that she was being unfairly treated in comparison to [Employee S]." Id. ¶¶ 91, 93. Ms. Bozarth also "complained that the situation with [Employee S] was causing...flare-ups of [her] disability...and that [she] needed the situation with [Employee S] to end as a result of her disability." Id. ¶ 92.
Later that morning, Ms. Bozarth was beckoned to Ms. Harmon's office where Ms. Long was present and Ms. Nizer and Mr. Valenti were present by phone. Id. ¶¶ 94-95. Ms. Bozarth "was told that she was 'being investigated[,]'" "that she had to 'pack her things and leave ASAP[,]'" and "that her position was reassigned to the Montgomery County Office in Rockville, Maryland (Region 5)." Id. ¶¶ 96-98. "Ms. Nizer told [Ms. Bozarth's] supervisor that 'anything [Ms. Bozarth] left at the office should be put out on the sidewalk.'" Id. ¶ 99. Ms. Bozarth's "supervisor was told to watch [Ms. Bozarth] so '[Ms. Bozarth] d[idn't] steal files.'" Id. ¶ 112. And, as Ms. Bozarth was exiting the building, "Ms. Harmon told her[,] 'I guess you thought you would call Baltimore and get me in trouble, looks like it backfired on you.'" Id. ¶ 113.
The new office to which Ms. Bozarth was assigned was "more than a thirty minute commute from [her] home[,] . . . a 1.5 hour commute each way [with traffic]." Id. ¶ 116. Ms. Bozarth's disability precludes "driving more than thirty minutes at a time[,]" and, in October 2018, Ms. Bozarth's doctor provided a note stating as much. Id. ¶¶ 117-18. On or around October 9, 2018, Ms. Bozarth submitted a request for an accommodation, supported by her physician, based on her inability to commute more than thirty minutes at a time and requested medical leave because she could not make the commute then required of her. Id. ¶¶ 118-21. While awaiting the State'sresponse, Ms. Bozarth was "disciplined for allegedly bullying [Employee S]." Id. ¶ 122. Ms. Bozarth contends the investigation unearthing this finding was a "sham," during which Employee S was not investigated. Id. ¶¶ 122-25. Ms. Nizer also informed Ms. Bozarth that her relocation to the Rockville office was permanent, Ms. Bozarth's presentation of evidence of her inability to travel to that office notwithstanding. Id. ¶ 126. Ms. Bozarth renewed her reasonable accommodation request for a worksite within her commuting capabilities on October 26, 2018...
To continue reading
Request your trial