Goode v. Am. Veterans, Inc.

• Citation: 874 F.Supp.2d 430
• Decision Date: 15 June 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. 8:11–cv–02414.
• Parties: Melinda A. GOODE, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN VETERANS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

874 F.Supp.2d 430

Melinda A. GOODE, Plaintiff,

v.AMERICAN VETERANS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 8:11–cv–02414.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

June 15, 2012.

Dan R. Mastromarco, The Mastromarco Firm PLLP, Annapolis, MD, for Plaintiff.

Ariana Wright Arnold, Jennifer Curry Bowman, Jackson Lewis LLP, Baltimore, MD, Jay Paul Holland, Matthew M. Bryant, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Greenbelt, MD, James E. McCollum, Jr., McCollum and Associates, LLC, College Park, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.

Melinda Goode (“Goode”) filed a nine-count complaint in this court on August 29, 2011 against defendants American Veterans, Inc. (“AMVETS”), her former employer, and Velma R. Hart (“Hart”) and Linda A. Tucker (“Tucker”), two former AMVETS employees, alleging abusive discharge (Count I); breach of express and implied agreement, breach of the employee policy manual and promissory estoppel (Count II); Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) violations (Count III); Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) violations (Count TV); tortious interference with business, economic, and contractual relations (Count V); civil conspiracy (Count VI); negligent misrepresentation (Count VII), intentional misrepresentation and fraud (Count VIII); and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IX).¹ All counts, except Count V, are directed against defendant AMVETS. Counts V and VI are asserted against defendants Hart and Tucker.

Now pending before the court are defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). (ECF Nos. 16 (Tucker), 17 (AMVETS), 18 (Hart).) In addition, Goode has filed a Rule 56(d) motion to permit discovery and hold defendants' summary judgment motions in abeyance. (ECF No. 27.) The issues have been fully briefed, and no oral argument is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below (1) Goode's Rule 56(d) motion is denied; (2) defendants' motions to dismiss are granted as to Counts IV (in part), V, and VI; (3) defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted as to Counts II, III, VII, and VIII; and (4) defendants' motions are denied with respect to Counts I and IV (in part).

I. BACKGROUND ²

Melinda A. Goode (“Goode” or “plaintiff”) worked as a meeting planner for American Veterans, Inc. (“AMVETS”) from September 8, 2008 until her discharge on August 27, 2009. (Compl. ¶¶ 2–3.) AMVETS is non-profit, 501(c)(19) tax-exempt organization. ( Id. ¶ 6.) It is the fourth-largest veterans organization in the United States and is open to all servicepersons who have honorably served or presently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. ( Id. ¶ 25.) The day-today functions of the organization are performed by a national staff, which is headed by several directors. ( Id. ¶¶ 28–29.) During Goode's tenure as AMVETS's meeting planner, James B. King (“King”) served as AMVETS's National Executive Director, ( Id. ¶ 30), and Velma R. Hart (“Hart”) served as the organization's National Finance Director. ( Id. ¶ 7.)

Goode first became aware of the meeting planner position in August 2008 after seeing an advertisement AMVETS placed in a local newspaper. ( Id. ¶ 36.) Goode responded to the ad with a resume and cover letter stressing the importance of the long-term nature of the advertised position. ( Id. ¶ 37.) Her cover letter stated, “Having recently closed my shop, I am seeking a long-term, permanent position which will utilize my experience and skills as a meeting planner.” ( Id.) That same month, on August 29, 2008, Goode interviewed for the position with King, AMVETS's Executive Director, and Maria Isaja (“Isaja”), AMVETS's Human Resources Director. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Goode avers that when she asked why the position was vacant, King explained that each former meeting planner “had simply moved on.” ( Id.) Goode states that when she pushed for more details as to why there had been three meeting planners in the span of three years, King responded that it was due to normal attrition and that AMVETS actually had little turnover, a product of the organization's good team environment. ( Id. ¶ 40.) According to Goode, King maintained there were no personality clashes or other issues that in any way hastened previous meeting planners' departures. ( Id. ¶ 44.) Goode asserts that throughout the interview she stressed the importance of job stability and specifically advised King and Isaja that she was looking for a long-term, permanent position—effectively her “last job.” ( Id. ¶ 42.) To further explain why stability was so important to her, Goode told King and Isaja that she recently closed her business and for financial reasons anticipated working beyond retirement age. ( Id.)

Goode was informed prior to the interview that the position paid “in the mid-to-high thirties.” ( Id. ¶ 38.) During the interview, Goode asked for a starting salary closer to $48,000. ( Id. ¶ 49.) King agreed to increase the position's salary to Goode's desired $48,000 after a six-month probationary period, ( Id. ¶ 49), and Isaja offered an initial salary review after three months. ( Id. ¶ 50.)

On September 2, 2008, Isaja phoned Goode to offer her the meeting planner position at a starting salary of $38,000, with an initial salary review after three months. ( Id. ¶ 51.) Two days later, Goode received a signed formal offer letter by e-mail. ( Id. ¶ 53.) The offer letter defined the meeting planner position as a “full-time exempt position,” listed Goode's start date and Salary, and provided for a three-month salary review. ( Id. ¶ 54.) In addition, the letter summarized her benefits package, including her right to life insurance, a 401(k) defined contribution plan, vacation and sick days, and long-term disability insurance. ( Id. ¶ 55.) The letter also made clear that Goode was to abide by AMVETS's employee handbook. ( Id. ¶ 57.) Finally, the letter included the following language:

Maryland is an “employment at will” state. This means that either you or AMVETS may, at your or our discretion, terminate our employment relationship at any time. Completion of the designated probationary period does not change your status as an at-will employee or in any way restrict AMVETS' right to terminate you or change the terms or conditions of your employment. This letter cannot be construed as a contract, but as an offer of employment for an indeterminate period of time.

( Id. ¶ 56.) Goode alleges that she immediately called Isaja to question her about the “at will” language. ( Id. ¶ 59.) Isaja's response, Goode states, was to downplay the language and dismiss it as “legalese” included in the letter to “keep the lawyers happy.” ( Id. ¶ 59.) After speaking with Isaja, Goode signed the offer letter. ( Id. ¶ 60.)

Goode began work on September 8, 2008. ( Id. ¶ 52.) Shortly thereafter she received AMVETS's “employee handbook,” referenced in her offer letter. ( Id. ¶ 61.) The handbook included a thorough discussion of AMVETS policies and procedures, including employee duties and obligations as well as rights and entitlements. ( Id. ¶¶ 62, 65.) The handbook also defined itself as “only a general guide” and said it was “not intended to be, and should not be, construed as a contract.” ( Id. ¶ 63; Compl. Ex. A. at 48, ECF No. 1–1.) Furthermore, the handbook reiterated that AMVETS was an at will employer and explained that “the employment-at-will doctrine ... part of the fabric of [Maryland's] non-statutory or ‘common law’ ... provides that an employee who does not have a written contract of employment for a specified period of time can be terminated at any time ... with or without notice or cause.” ( Id.)

Over the course of her employment, Goode planned several events. ( Id. ¶ 68.) Goode states she was significantly under budget for all of these events, received praise from AMVETS leadership, and was never the subject of any complaints or negative performance evaluations. ( Id. ¶ 69.) Goode performed successfully despite working under what she alleged amounted to a hostile and intolerable work environment. ( Id. ¶ 70.) Goode states defendant Hart engaged in uncivil and harassing behavior, including threats, invasion of privacy, verbal abuse, public ridicule and belittling, in an attempt to force Goode to quit. ( Id. ¶ 84.) Goode reported to King, pursuant to the employee handbook's reporting procedures, not only Hart's alleged harassment but also suspicions of Hart's inappropriate use of AMVETS's corporate credit card and attempted manipulation of corporate award accounts for Hart's personal benefit. ( Id. ¶¶ 75, 76, 78.)

In addition to her grievances related to Hart, Goode questioned King and Isaja about her status as an exempt employee, arguing that she was, in fact, a non-exempt employee and was therefore entitled to overtime wages under Maryland and federal law. ( Id. ¶¶ 89–92.) Unsatisfied with King's response, Goode reported the alleged violation to the United States Depart of Labor (“DOL”) on September 17, 2009. ( Id. ¶ 94.)

On August 27, 2009, King and Isaja informed Goode that the meeting planner position had been eliminated for budgetary reasons. ( Id. ¶ 95.) Following Goode's discharge, on September 1, 2009, AMVETS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Events at Last, an event planning company owned and operated by defendant Linda Tucker (“Tucker”), a former AMVETS employee. (AMVETS Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss or Summ. J. at 5–6, ECF No. 17–1.) From January 2000 until May 2006, Tucker held the meeting planner position Goode later occupied. (Compl. ¶ 33.) Goode alleges Hart discovered the complaints lodged against her and retaliated against Goode by conspiring with Tucker to replace Goode after Hart secured Goode's termination under the cover of a “Reduction in Force.” ( Id. ¶¶ 80–83, 85–86.)

After her alleged wrongful discharge, Goode filed this action...