Guluma v. Dejoy

• Decision Date: 24 May 2022
• Docket Number: DLB-20-3588
• Parties: FREDRICK C. GULUMA, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

FREDRICK C. GULUMA, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, Defendant.

No. DLB-20-3588

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 24, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH L. BOARDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Fredrick Guluma, proceeding pro se, filed suit against the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service, claiming violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). Guluma, a postal employee, alleges his employer discriminated against him based on his race national origin, and age when his supervisor placed him on emergency off-duty status and then subjected him to yelling and criticism for a period of two months upon his return. ECF 1. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. ECF 19. The motion has been fully briefed. ECF 23 & 24. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.

I. Background

As is proper on a motion to dismiss, the Court takes all well-pleaded allegations contained in the complaint as true. Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016)). Guluma attached several exhibits to his complaint, which the Court considers as part of the complaint “for all purposes.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c); see also Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016).

Guluma is an employee of the United States Postal Service. ECF 1, ¶ 4.1. He works as a data technician. Id. His employment began on November 17, 2012 and continued through at least December 2020, when he filed the pending complaint. Id.

Guluma alleges he suffered workplace discrimination between October and December 2016. Id. ¶ 4.3. At the time, Guluma worked as a parcel post distribution clerk at the Capital Beltway Facility. Id.; ECF 1-6, at 38. Guluma is Ugandan and was 55 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination. ECF 1-6, at 39. He does not identify his race. On October 14, while Guluma was working the mail racks, Guluma's supervisor, Tamara Johnson, accused him of touching her. ECF 1, ¶¶ 4.3, 4.5. Guluma described the events leading up to the accusation as follows: “As I approached [Johnson], she was busy going through her phone and my right forearm accidentally touched her arm .... Out of the blue . . ., she yelled at me saying ‘don't touch me.'

I had to walk away from this crazy and unfriendly situation and continued with my work.” ECF 1-6, at 28 (cleaned up). As a result of Johnson's accusation, Guluma was placed on emergency off-duty status that same day. ECF 1-6, at 26. He did not receive pay during the emergency placement. Id.

Guluma's union filed a grievance on his behalf, and Johnson “was ordered to recall [him] back to work.” ECF 1, ¶ 4.6. Following Guluma's return to work, Johnson “discriminated against [him] by being spiteful, shouting at [him] and being critical of [his] work.” Id. ¶ 4.3. Johnson “did not stop her abuses” when Guluma informed her he was “above 40 years” in age. Id. ¶ 4.4. Johnson “made it a habit to constantly yell at [him] on the work floor despite the fact that” he was “over 40 years[.]” ECF 1-6, at 44. She did not act the same way to Guluma's “age contemporaries.” Id. She would yell his name loudly and look “for fault” in him, and she was “critical and spiteful” of his work. Id. On December 25, Guluma noticed his colleagues “doing nothing” and he decided to also relax his hurting foot. Id. Johnson approached them and ignored the other employees while yelling at Guluma and threatening him about being “off the clock” when he had just arrived. Id. On December 30, Guluma arrived at work and relieved another employee, as was normal practice, but Johnson “came along yelling at [him]” about it and asked him who told him to relieve the employee. Id. She also would “come to inspect the mail [he] was sorting and placing in the sacks[.]” Id.

After contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Counselor, Guluma filed a Formal Complaint of Discrimination (“EEOC complaint”) with the Postal Service on February 8, 2017. Id. at 28-29. He claimed he was discriminated against when Johnson placed him on emergency leave, when she was critical of his work, and when she spoke to him in a loud manner. ECF 1-7, at 1. He also claimed a hostile work environment. Id. at 17. He claimed discrimination based on his national origin and age and retaliation for his EEOC activity. Id. at 1. He abandoned his retaliation claims at the administrative level. Id. at 11. Sometime after filing his EEOC complaint, Guluma “bid out” of the Capital Beltway Facility. ECF 1, ¶ 4.6.

In his EEOC Investigative Affidavit, Guluma stated he was not sure if his supervisors were aware of his age or national origin, but that they knew he “originated from the African continent because of [his] accent.” ECF 1-6, at 39. He added:

It's my belief that since they knew [I] am an immigrant from Africa and thou[gh] it does not specify my national origin, I became a victim of circumstances that meant they had to take the course of action they did in their own instinct[.]

I don't think this was a factor but I am above 40 years of age and I needed some degree of respect but the way I was treated makes me believe that they intended to humiliate me without any compassion based on my age.

...

This was an ongoing scenario as I had become a specific target for her constant harassment and to a certain extent I would believe that it was due to the fact that [I] am an immigrant from Africa though my nationality seems m[ea]ningless at this point[.]

...

I was always singled out for discriminatory harassment because I believe I was the only remaining African from the African continent.

I was always saying I need respect because [I] am above 40 and always maintained the fact that [Johnson] should treat me just as she does others of my age bracket.

Id. at 43, 46, 50. Guluma identified another employee, approximately age 26, as one of several younger employees whom Johnson did not criticize in the same manner she criticized Guluma. Id. at 46-47.

On July 21, 2017, the Postal Service issued a Final Agency Decision regarding Guluma's EEOC complaint, finding that “the evidence does not support a finding that the complainant was subject to discrimination as alleged” and closing the case “with a finding of no discrimination.” ECF 1-7, at 21-22. Guluma appealed the decision to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations, which affirmed the decision on October 26, 2018. ECF 1-5, at 4-11. Guluma requested reconsideration, which was denied on September 9, 2020. ECF 1-4.

Guluma filed the pending complaint on December 10, 2020. ECF 1. He claims violations of Title VII and the ADEA. Id. He alleges he was discriminated against based on his race, national origin, and age when he was placed on off-duty status, when Johnson yelled at him, and when she was critical of his work. Id. at ¶¶ 4.3, 4.6. He asserts the evidence will establish “a pattern of constant discrimination, abuse and unsafe work environment which caused emotional damage to [him] as a person, distress, lack of self esteem and other effects.” Id. ¶ 5.

II. Standard of Review

Defendant moves to dismiss some of Guluma's Title VII and ADEA claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. ECF 19, at 5-7. The Supreme Court recently held Title VII's administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional issue. Fort Bend Cnty., Tex. v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 1843, 1850-51 (2019). This Court has applied the holding in Davis to the ADEA, which has a similar administrative exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., Ebaugh v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. ELH-20-663, 2021 WL 2580118, at *7 (D. Md. June 23, 2021) (applying Davis to ADEA claims); Johnson v. Silver Diner, Inc., No. PWG-18-3021, 2019 WL 3717784, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2019) (treating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Title VII and ADEA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Consequently, any motion to dismiss based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be considered under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1). See Olivarria v. Cooper, 776 Fed.Appx. 128, 129 (4th Cir. 2019) (mem.) (remanding because the district court found it lacked jurisdiction over an unexhausted Title VII claim and advising the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional), rev'g No. 5:17-CV-590-D, 2019 WL 1748506 (E.D. N.C. Apr. 18, 2019).

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint” and “should be granted unless the complaint ‘states a plausible claim for relief.'” In re Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017), as amended (Jan. 20, 2017) (quoting Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012)); see Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6). To survive the motion, the “complaint need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Ray, 948 F.3d at 226 (quoting Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 379, 387 (4th Cir. 2013)). Stated differently, the complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.'” Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 752 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept all the...