Husbands v. Fin. Mgmt. Sols.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | GJH-20-3618 |
| Parties | LERON W. HUSBANDS, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Leron Husbands brings this civil action against Defendants Financial Management Solutions, LLC (“FMS”) Dreyfuss Management Services, LLC (“DMS”), and Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, alleging various claims stemming from Plaintiff's employment at FMS, including race discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wage violations. ECF Nos. 2 &11-1. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. ECF No 11.[1] No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is granted, in part, and denied, in part.
The following facts remain unchanged from the original Complaint. Compare. ECF No. 11-1 with ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Leron W. Husbands, who is African-American, has worked at Defendant Financial Management Solutions, LLC (“FMS”) for more than 12 years. ECF No. 111 ¶¶ 1-2, 7.[3]At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff's primary duty was “to engage in the collection of debt through telephonic communications with debtors.” Id. ¶ 7. According to Plaintiff, Defendant FMS and Defendant Dreyfuss Management Services, LLC (“DMS”), FMS's parent company, instituted a policy and practice in which FMS's debt-collecting workers received their assignments based on race-“African-American employees, like Plaintiff, would be assigned to collect the debts of African-American debtors, while white employees would be assigned to collect from white debtors.” Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff learned of the practice in early January 2017 and it “apparently came to an end shortly thereafter.” Id. ¶¶ 9-10. However, while the policy was in effect, the policy damaged Plaintiff financially due to disparity between the average household incomes of African-American and white debtors. Id. ¶ 11.
Plaintiff further alleges that he and other workers on site at FMS's office were continuously video and audio recorded without their consent. Id. ¶ 12. According to Plaintiff's understanding, FMS only recorded statements made by its own employees-not those made by debtors during phone calls with them. Id. ¶ 12 n.5. Plaintiff alleges that he and another employee objected to the recording. Id. ¶ 12.
Finally, in the original Complaint and in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises several pay issues with respect to FMS. First, Plaintiff alleges that FMS paid its employees twice per month rather than every two weeks. Id. ¶ 13. Second, FMS deducted money from its employees' paychecks when the employees did not reach their quota for a preceding month, although it has since discontinued that practice. Id. ¶ 14 & n.6. Third, FMS wrongly deducted Plaintiff's pay during holidays and vacations and improperly reduced his personal leave and sick pay hours. Id. ¶ 15.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds allegations concerning Defendants' responses to his requests for accommodations for his respiratory disability and a disability associated with his back. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019 and again in April 2019, he “communicated with FMS regarding his need for a reasonable accommodation in relation to musty, old carpeting, which was causing Plaintiff respiratory and allergy problems.” Id. ¶ 23. However, on May 6, 2019, FMS denied Plaintiff's request, stating in a letter that the facility's air quality was “‘below ambient,' that Plaintiff could ask for ‘other reasonable accommodations,' and that, otherwise, they ‘consider this matter closed and hope you can put it behind you.'” Id. ¶ 24. FMS never provided Plaintiff with an effective accommodation, “such as the removal of the carpeting or teleworking.” Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff is confident these would have been effective because removal of carpets at his home had remedied his ailments, and he only suffered from respiratory difficulties at work. Id. According to Plaintiff, FMS was “antagonistic towards the concept of Plaintiff teleworking” despite Plaintiff's duties being particularly well-suited for remote work. Id. ¶ 26.
Plaintiff next alleges that FMS retaliated against him for seeking this accommodation in early April 2019 “by issuing him a notice of disciplinary action (written warning) . . . in which FMS formally alleged that he was insubordinate and in violation of company policy in relation to his cell phone usage.” Id. ¶ 27. According to Plaintiff, other employees were not disciplined in writing for their alleged cell phone use. Id.
In addition to Plaintiff's respiratory problems, Plaintiff had a damaged disc in his back and ultimately had to have surgery in mid-July 2019. Id. ¶ 29. Due to the “severe and debilitating” pain, Plaintiff took medical leave “on an intermittent basis” starting in or about mid-May 2019. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. At some point, although the Amended Complaint does not clearly state when, he took leave “for a continuous multi-week period.” Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff returned to work full-time on or about September 3, 2019. Id. ¶ 31. According to Plaintiff, throughout the period he was on intermittent and continuous leave, he was “harassed and interfered with”-for example, his pay and paid leave were improperly docked, he was not provided a downward adjustment for his monthly collection goal, and his need for leave was continually challenged and questioned. Id. ¶¶ 32-35.
On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination against FMS, which was cross-filed with the Prince George's County Human Relations Commission, containing the allegations added in the Amended Complaint. Id. ¶ 36. Plaintiff also checked the boxes on the Charge form for discrimination based upon disability and sex, and for retaliation. Id.
On April 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County against FMS, DMS, and Jeffrey Hausfeld. ECF No. 2. The Complaint alleged race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I), violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 10-401 et seq. (Count II), and violations of the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law, Md. Code. Ann., Labor & Employment §§ 3-501 et seq. (Count III). See id. FMS filed an Answer to the Complaint on November 19, 2020, ECF No. 3, and Mr. Hausfeld filed an Answer that was served on October 22, 2020, ECF No. 4. DMS, however, removed the action to this Court on December 15, 2020, ECF No. 1, and filed an Answer on December 22, 2020, ECF No. 7.
On December 28, 2020, after having received a Notice of Right to Sue in October 2020, see ECF No. 11-1 ¶ 38, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 11. The Amended Complaint added 15 claims alleging: failure to accommodate under the Maryland Fair Employment Practice Act, Md. Code, § 20-606 of the State Government Article (“MFEPA”), Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., as amended (“ADA”), Prince George's County Code §§ 2-185 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (Counts IV-VII); disability discrimination under those same four statutes (Counts VIII-XI); retaliation under those same four statutes (Counts XII-XV); violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act for both interference and retaliation (Counts XVI & XVII); and violation of the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law (Count XVIII). Id.
While the Amended Complaint was filed just six days after Defendant DMS filed its responsive pleading, and Plaintiff may thus amend as of right against Defendant DMS, leave is required to amend the Complaint as to Defendants FMS and Hausfeld. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).[4] Defendants FMS and DMS opposed Plaintiff's Motion on January 11, 2021, ECF No. 14, and Plaintiff replied on January 29, 2021, ECF No. 17. On June 11, 2021, Defendant Hausfeld filed a Motion Requesting Status and Request for Scheduling Order, ECF No. 19, which Defendants FMS and DMS opposed, ECF No. 20.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that courts “should freely give leave” to parties to amend pleadings “when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “This liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006). The Fourth Circuit has “interpreted Rule 15(a) to provide that ‘leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.'” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)); see also Mayfield v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2012). “Futility is apparent if the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the applicable rules and accompanying standards, ” and would therefore not survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 690 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Katyle v. Penn Nat'l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011)).
To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is 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....
To continue reading
Request your trial