Brown v. Baltimore Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 21 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB-11-00136 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
| Parties | ANTHONY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants. |
Plaintiff Anthony Brown ("Plaintiff" or "Brown"), by and through his attorneys, Craig R. Schulman, David I. Weinstein and Schulman, Treem & Gilden, P.A., has brought this action against Defendants Baltimore Police Department ("BPD"), the Baltimore Police Commissioner ("Commissioner"), Frederick H. Bealefeld, III, Former Mayor of Baltimore City, Sheila Dixon, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore City, the City Council of Baltimore ("City Council"), the State of Maryland as well as Lieutenant John Windle ("Windle") and Sergeant Allen Adkins ("Adkins"). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") contains nine Counts. It alleges disparate treatment, retaliation, constructive discharge and conspiracy to deny equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution against all Defendants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as well as the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20–601 et seq ("FEPA"). In addition, the Complaint alleges discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the BPD, the Commissioner, the City Council and Former Mayor Dixon as well as violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against Adkins and Windle. Furthermore, the Complaint alleges intentionalinfliction of emotional distress in violation of Maryland common law against the BPD, Adkins and Windle. Finally, the Complaint alleges negligent retention and/or supervision in violation of Maryland common law against the State of Maryland, the BPD, the Commissioner, the City Council and Windle.
Pending before this Court is the Motion of Defendants City Council, Former Mayor Dixon and Mayor Rawlings-Blake to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 8). Also pending before this Court is Defendants BPD and the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and/or for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 15). Finally, Defendants Adkins and Windle also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and/or for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in this case (ECF No. 21). The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011).
For the reasons that follow, Defendants City Council, Former Mayor Dixon and Mayor Rawlings-Blake's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, and this case is dismissed as to them in all respects. The Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment of the Baltimore Police Department and Commissioner Bealefeld (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically all claims are dismissed as to Commissioner Bealefeld in all respects. With respect to the Baltimore Police Department all counts are dismissed, except Counts II and IV claiming retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C § 1981 and the FEPA. The Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment of Defendants Adkins and Windle (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, all counts against them are dismissed except for Count IV claiming retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Anthony Brown brings this action against Defendants for injuries and damages sustained as a result of alleged employment discrimination practices in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, the Annotated Code of Maryland and the common law of Maryland. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint must be accepted as true and those facts must be construed in the light most favorable to him. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff is African-American and was employed with the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD") from May 6, 1992 until his retirement on August 13, 2009. Pl.'s 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 13, 24 (ECF No. 4). Prior to working for the BPD, from 1982 to 1991, Plaintiff served in the United States Army. Am. Compl. ¶ 4. At the times relevant to the Complaint, Brown was a Detective for the BPD, Defendant Adkins was a Sergeant and Defendant Windle was a Lieutenant. Id. at ¶ 11-12, 14.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from and was diagnosed with Pseudofolliculitis Barbae ("PFB"), a painful skin condition that occurs in some individuals, particularly African American men, after shaving. Id. at ¶ 13. General Order C-12 of the BPD, concerning Professional Appearance Standards, prohibits police officers from having facial hair. Id. at ¶ 15. However, this order makes an exception for police officers who suffer from PFB allowing them to "clip the beard as closely as medically permitted (normally ¼ inch in length)" as long as a waiver is obtained pursuant to the "Accommodation and Exemption" procedure outlined in the regulation. Id., see also Mem. in Opp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. No. 2 ¶¶18-19.1 (ECF No. 24-2). Plaintiff thus contends that although his PFB diagnosis was "well-documented and widely known" throughout his career and that he was "presumed to have a legitimate shaving profile,"Defendant Adkins instructed him to shave on January 13, 2009. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16. On the same day, Brown acquired a letter from his dermatologist, Dr. Larry H. Gaston, recommending that he be permanently exempted from the shaving requirement. Id. at 16; see also Pl.'s Compl., Ex. No. 2 (ECF No. 1-2). Despite presenting a copy of this letter to Defendant Adkins and his assistant on January 14, 2009, Plaintiff contends that, on January 16, 2009, in preparation for President Obama's visit to Baltimore City, he was again ordered to shave by both Defendants Adkins and Windle. Am. Compl. ¶ 17-19. Plaintiff also alleges that when he reiterated the fact that he had a shaving profile, Adkins and Windle disregarded his statement and reaffirmed the order. Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff claims that this order caused him to meet with Gene S. Ryan, the Vice President of the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police, to discuss the situation. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff then alleges that Vice President Ryan instructed him to comply with the order to avoid a potential suspension or the loss of his police powers and privileges. Id.
Upon reporting for duty on January 17, 2009, Brown contends that he was not clean-shaven but had sought to comply with the order to the best of his ability while respecting the limitation relating to his condition. Id. at ¶ 21. Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Windle and Adkins were dissatisfied with his efforts. Id. Plaintiff then alleges that Adkins and Windle proceeded to provide him with a "Bic razor and a small bottle of shaving cream" and instructed him to shave "in front of everyone and without the use of water and/or a mirror." Id. Plaintiff also contends that he was not given the opportunity to go to a bathroom facility to shave. Id. Plaintiff then alleges that he felt pressured into complying with their instruction as he believed that he had no choice but to comply with it. Id. Plaintiff further contends that the incident caused him to suffer "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish" as well as"tremendous physical pain, discomfort and disfigurement" due to the resulting aggravation of his PFB. Id.
Following this incident, Plaintiff claims that Lieutenant Colonel Oden 1 arranged a meeting in his office to allow Brown and Adkins to discuss the situation and resolve any remaining issues. Id. at ¶ 22. Despite this meeting, Brown alleges that the issues were not resolved and that lingering problems between him and his superior caused him to be denied benefits associated with his rank and tenure. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he received "an extremely poor" performance evaluation on or about January 24, 2009. Id. He further contends that he was not permitted to choose his foot details and vacation days according to his level of experience and that his requests for overtime assignments were routinely denied. Id. Brown claims that these actions caused a severe reduction of his pay resulting in financial hardship to himself and his family. Id. at ¶ 23. In light of Defendants Adkins and Windle's actions, Plaintiff alleges that he filed a statement with Lieutenant Colonel Oden on May 21, 2009 and then a Charge of Discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Human Rights on May 28, 2009. Id. at 24. He further claims that Defendants Adkins and Windle's retaliatory actions forced him to retire from the BPD on August 13, 2009. Id.
On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff received the Notice of Right to Sue from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") after it essentially rejected his claims. He then filed a nine Count Complaint (ECF No. 1) against the Defendants in this case on January 14, 2011 followed by a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) filed on January 28, 2011.
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a court's authority to hear the matter brought by a complaint. See Davis v. Thompson, 367 F. Supp. 2d 792, 799 (D. Md. 2005). A plaintiff carries the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). In determining whether jurisdiction exists, the district court "is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768–769 (4th Cir. 1991). Motions to...
To continue reading
Request your trial