Holloway v. Maryland

• Decision Date: 25 April 2022
• Docket Number: 20-1958
• Citation: 32 F.4th 293
• Parties: Charles HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Maryland Military Department ; Freestate Challenge Academy, Defendants - Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

32 F.4th 293

Charles HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.State of MARYLAND; Maryland Military Department ; Freestate Challenge Academy, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-1958

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: September 21, 2021

Decided: April 25, 2022

ARGUED: Jeremy David Greenberg, CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lisa O'Mara Arnquist, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Denise M. Clark, CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Quattlebaum joined.

RUSHING, Circuit Judge:

Charles Holloway sued his former employer, the Maryland Military Department, and related entities Freestate Challenge Academy and the State of Maryland, alleging that they discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. The district court dismissed Holloway's complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm the dismissal of Holloway's hostile work environment claim. But because we conclude that Holloway has plausibly alleged claims of unlawful termination and retaliation, we reverse the dismissal of those claims and remand for further proceedings.

I.

The following facts are taken from Holloway's complaint and assumed to be true for purposes of this appeal. See Fairfax v. CBS Corp. , 2 F.4th 286, 290 (4th Cir. 2021).

Holloway, a black man, began his employment with Defendants in 2014, as the "Program Coordinator/Deputy Director" of Freestate Challenge Academy, a residential education program for at-risk adolescents. From 2014 to 2016, Holloway worked under Program Director Charles Rose, a white man. While he worked for Rose, Holloway was a top performer and regularly received outstanding evaluations. In June 2016, Rose was dismissed as Program Director but apparently reinstated elsewhere within the Maryland Military Department. Holloway then assumed the role of Acting Program Director. Around November 2016, Holloway was promoted to Program Director.

After Holloway's promotion, he began to have problems with the Director of Human Resources, a white man named Nicholas Pindale. According to Holloway, Pindale refused to work with him and required Holloway, unlike other directors, to take his concerns to the Human Resources Deputy Director, Princess Neal Washington, a black woman. In early 2018, Holloway learned he was being paid around $5,000 less annually than Rose had been.

Holloway raised the pay discrepancy with Pindale, who allegedly agreed Holloway was not being compensated fairly but did not rectify the disparity.

Around February 1, 2018, Holloway filed his first Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint, alleging "discrimination and harassment/hostile work environment on the part of Mr. Pindale." J.A. 8. Mediation resulted in a settlement agreement, which Holloway alleges Defendants breached. Sometime later in February or March, Pindale contacted one of Holloway's subordinates and asked if she felt safe under Holloway's leadership. Holloway alleges this communication was not founded on an actual safety concern of which he was aware. On March 1, Holloway filed his second EEO complaint. He again claimed discriminatory harassment by Pindale. Mediation resulted in another settlement agreement, which Holloway contends was breached.

From 2016 to 2018, Holloway had received positive evaluations from the Chief of Staff, Annette Deener. In January 2018, Deener retired and was replaced by Jeffrey Teller. Within a few months, Holloway experienced difficulty with Teller.

Sometime in April 2018, Teller was on Freestate's campus for a meeting. He observed police at the school and notified Deener. (The complaint does not reconcile the contradictory allegations that Deener retired in January 2018 and yet was still Chief of Staff at the time of this incident.) Holloway alleges that Teller's recounting of the incident to Deener undermined Holloway's leadership and hindered his ability to effectively manage Freestate. During a meeting in May, Teller again allegedly disparaged Holloway's leadership and management skills and admonished Holloway for not working with Pindale. Later that month, Teller honored Pindale instead of Holloway in an employee recognition program.

On May 25, 2018, Teller issued Holloway a disciplinary performance evaluation asserting that Holloway had mismanaged the Freestate budget. Holloway alleges that Budget Officer John Nickerson, a white man, was the person responsible for budget oversight and yet did not receive any type of disciplinary sanction for mismanaging the budget. Four days later, on May 29, Holloway filed his third EEO discrimination complaint.

In June, Holloway requested a meeting with Teller to discuss procurement card access. Teller scheduled the meeting for 6:30 a.m., an hour and a half before the 8:00 a.m. start of Holloway's workday. At the meeting, Teller allegedly yelled at and berated Holloway. Teller slammed documents on the table and demanded that Holloway read aloud a chart depicting the organizational staffing structure. Teller told Holloway that he was "beneath him" and demanded Holloway address him as "sir," although Holloway alleges white employees were permitted to address Teller by his first name. J.A. 12. Finally, Teller said he was aware of Holloway's complaint against Pindale "and that he (Mr. Teller) would be involved." J.A. 12.

Around the same time, a "climate survey" was issued at Freestate to solicit feedback about leadership. J.A. 12. No other department received such a survey, nor was one issued during Rose's tenure as Program Director. Not long thereafter, Teller contacted Holloway's subordinates questioning his whereabouts during the workday.

On or about August 16, Holloway was informed that the State had completed its investigation of his EEO complaints and had found "no evidence to substantiate his claims." J.A. 13. Then on August 22, Holloway was fired. The reasons given for his termination were "concerns regarding budget issues in a recent audit on April 2018 and low enrollment numbers." J.A. 13. He was replaced by Karilynn Dunnmeyer, a white woman. Holloway alleges that, although Dunnmeyer had fewer years of supervisory experience and little to no experience performing the functions of Program Director, she was paid at least $10,000 more annually than Holloway for the same position.

After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holloway filed the present lawsuit, alleging unlawful termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Although he asserted claims under Title VII and Maryland law, he subsequently abandoned his Maryland law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss Holloway's complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The district court granted Defendants' motion and dismissed all of Holloway's claims with prejudice. Regarding unlawful termination, the district court concluded that Holloway had "failed to plead a prima facie case of discrimination" because his complaint did not plead facts showing that his work was satisfactory to his employer or that any proffered comparators were similarly situated to Holloway and treated more favorably. Holloway v. Maryland , 1:20-cv-377-RDB, 2020 WL 4582705, at *5 (D. Md. Aug. 10, 2020). The court dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim because the allegations were not "severe or pervasive" enough to state a plausible claim. Id. at *6. As for retaliation, the district court concluded that Holloway failed to allege a causal link between his EEO complaints and his termination, given that he was terminated "well over six months after his first EEO complaint and nearly three months after his last EEO complaint." Id. at *7. Holloway timely appealed.

II.

We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 324 F.3d 761, 764 (4th Cir. 2003). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Mere "labels and conclusions" will not do. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

It has long been the rule that "an employment discrimination plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination" under the evidentiary framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to withstand a motion to dismiss. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. , 534 U.S. 506, 515, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) ; see Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 616 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1376, 209 L.Ed.2d 122 (2021) ; Woods v. City of Greensboro , 855 F.3d 639, 648 (4th Cir. 2017) ; McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin. , 780 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 2015) ; Bass , 324 F.3d at 764–765. The district court therefore erred in requiring Holloway to plead facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. But we may affirm the dismissal despite the district court's erroneous analysis if the complaint fails under the ordinary rules for assessing sufficiency. See McCleary-Evans , 780 F.3d at 585. So we proceed with de novo review of the complaint.

III.

...