Johnson v. Balt. Police Dep't
| Jurisdiction | Maryland,United States,Federal |
| Parties | WANDA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. BALT. POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 08 May 2024 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
| Docket Number | Civil Action RDB-23-2215 |
Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District Judge.
In this civil rights action, Plaintiff Wanda Johnson “) raises three claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-one claim for race discrimination (Count I), one claim for hostile work environment (Count II), and one claim for retaliation (Count III); a Monell[1] claim for violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count IV); and violations under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”) (Count V), against her former employer, Defendant Baltimore Police Department (“Defendant” or “BPD”).[2] (ECF No 1.)[3] Specifically, W. Johnson claims that, by continuing a disciplinary investigation against her that ultimately resulted in formal charges and her “forced” resignation, Defendant BPD discriminated against her based on her race, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her for submitting internal complaints. (Id. ¶¶ 51-72, 73-81, 82-100, 123-130.) Plaintiff also claims that her rights were violated as a result of BPD's custom and practice of disproportionately punishing Black officers. (Id. ¶¶ 101-122.)
Presently pending before this Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 10), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 11). The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons that follow, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) shall be GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts in a complaint and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Wikimedia Found. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015)). Except where otherwise indicated, the following facts are derived from Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1), and accepted as true for the purpose of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9).
The instant case arises out of events that transpired after a bar fight at Norma Jean's nightclub on August 26, 2018. At the time of the bar fight, Plaintiff Wanda Johnson, who is Black, was employed as a Police Officer with the Baltimore Police Department and engaged to her now-husband, Marcus Johnson (“M. Johnson”), a fellow BPD Police Officer. (ECF No. 1¶¶ 15, 20.) In brief, W. Johnson and other off-duty police officers had gathered at Norma Jean's for Plaintiff's bachelorette party when an altercation ensued between members of Plaintiff s party and other nightclub patrons. (Id. ¶¶ 21-24.) After a member of Plaintiff s bachelorette party notified M. Johnson about the altercation, M. Johnson, who was on patrol, “contacted his supervisor to request permission to enter the venue and escort Plaintiff to safety.” (Id. ¶ 25.) Sometime after M. Johnson arrived on the scene, a physical altercation ensued between Henrietta Middleton (“Middleton”), an off-duty BPD Police Officer attending Plaintiff's bachelorette, and BPD Sgt. Marlon Koushall (“Koushall”) on the sidewalk outside Norma Jean's. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27.) The altercation was witnessed by another off-duty BPD Police Officer attending Plaintiff's bachelorette, Det. Dominique Wiggins (“Wiggins”), who attempted to intervene and render aid to Middleton after she witnessed Koushall approach and strike Middleton in her face. (Id. ¶¶ 27-28.) Middleton was removed from the scene in handcuffs, (id. ¶ 29), though as discussed below, Koushall was ultimately charged for assault on Middleton several months later. (Id. ¶ 34.)
Shortly after the incident, Sgt. Raymond Lloyd (“Lloyd”) of BPD's Internal Affairs Division[4] (“Internal Affairs” or “IAD”) interviewed all BPD personnel who were at Norma Jean's, including Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 30-31.) W. Johnson alleges that “due to the conduct of [] Koushall and BPD's attempts to protect him, . . . the Internal Affairs [d]etectives chose to fabricate allegations against Plaintiff and her husband regarding their roles and alleged motives to fabricate statements in the incident.” (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff further alleges that she was “blocked from transferring to another unit due to the incident.” (Id. ¶ 33.)
Sometime in February 2019, Koushall was formally charged for the August 26, 2018 incident. (Id. ¶ 34.) Sometime in September 2019, Plaintiff testified for the State during Koushall's bench trial. (Id. ¶ 36.) Ultimately, Koushall was found guilty of second-degree assault and misconduct in office, and his conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Maryland[5] and the Maryland Supreme Court.[6] (Id.); see Koushall v. State, No. 2031, 2021 Md.App. LEXIS 36, 2021 WL 225810 (Md.App. Jan. 22, 2021); Koushall v. State, 277 A.3d 1090 (Md. 2022).
Meanwhile, in June 2019, W. Johnson was notified that she was being investigated in relation to the incident. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 35.) Sometime thereafter in June 2019, the Office of the State's Attorney for Baltimore City (“SAO”) sent a letter to the BPD announcing that their office was declining to pursue charges against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 39); see Harrison v. Johnson, Nos. 1209, 1229, 1230, 2021 WL 4841134, 2021 Md.App. LEXIS 929, at *2 (Md.App. Oct. 18, 2021).
However, on June 4, 2020, BPD IAD interviewed W. Johnson as part of the disciplinary investigation against her. (Id. ¶ 35); Harrison, 2021 Md.App. LEXIS 929, at *2. On June 11, 2020, disciplinary charges were filed against W. Johnson, Wiggins, and M. Johnson. Harrison, 2021 Md.App. LEXIS 929, at *2, 6-8. According to the charges against her, Plaintiff was involved in physical altercations with other patrons and she was accused of making false statements in her interviews on August 26, 2018 and June 4, 2020. Id.; (see also ECF No. 1 ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges that she was promptly suspended without pay, (ECF No. 1 ¶ 39), though the Suspension of Police Powers form dated June 11, 2020 provides that Plaintiff was suspended with pay. (See ECF No. 9-5)
On August 26, 2020, W. Johnson filed a complaint and petition for a show cause order in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, requesting the court require BPD to show cause why the disciplinary charges against her were not time-barred and requesting that the court enjoin BPD from pursuing the charges filed against her. Harrison, 2021 Md.App. LEXIS 929, at *2, 8-9. While the circuit court granted W. Johnson's petition, on October 18, 2021, the Appellate Court of Maryland[7] reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that BPD could proceed with the disciplinary charges against Johnson. Id. at *5-6, 22-27. While Plaintiff s Complaint indicates that Maryland's intermediate appellate court found the charges against Plaintiff were time-barred, (ECF No. 1 ¶ 41), that is not so. Harrison, 2021 Md.App. LEXIS 929, at *5-6, 22-27. The court held that the false statement charges brought against W. Johnson seven days after the false statements were allegedly made on June 4, 2020 were not time-barred and that the charges against Plaintiff concerning violations committed on August 28, 2018 were also not time-barred because the applicable limitations period did not begin running until June 14, 2019 when the SAO sent its first declination letter. Id.
As a result of the Appellate Court of Maryland's finding that the charges against Johnson were not time-barred, the disciplinary matter against Plaintiff proceeded to an administrative trial board on May 24-25, 2022, pursuant to Section 3-107 of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 43.) Plaintiff alleges that BPD “attempted to terminate Plaintiff on the basis of alleged violations of BPD policy for assault, false statements, interference with internal investigations, and misconduct in failing to report the altercation to her supervisors, despite the fact that [she] was off-duty when the incident occurred]] and consistently denied the allegations.” (Id.) On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff “was forced . . . to submit her resignation in lieu of termination].]” (Id. ¶ 44.)
In her Complaint, Plaintiff states she “was shocked that she was immediately moved towards termination and ultimately forced to resign,” citing four examples where white BPD personnel suspected of misconduct or other severe offenses were not subjected to the same punishment. (Id. ¶ 46.) First, Plaintiff cites an instance where a white male officer called an applicant a racial slur but was given the opportunity to retire without reprimand. (Id.) Second, Plaintiff cites an example where a white male officer accrued multiple DUI charges and a fleeing and eluding police charge, whom Plaintiff alleges was “suspended then reinstated with minimal punishment” but ultimately retired. (Id.) Third, Plaintiff cites an incident where a white male officer was charged with “use of force” for striking an individual suffering from a behavioral crisis and received no suspension but instead received a “severe letter of reprimand” and loss of five days of leave, though he was ultimately suspended awaiting a declination letter for another incident. (Id) Lastly, Plaintiff cites an instance where a white female officer was involved in a domestic assault with another law enforcement officer. (Id.) While both officers were suspended, the trial board hearing against the white female officer was dismissed and charges dropped “due to what was referred to as an improper investigation by the investigating detective.” (Id) Plaintiff further alleges that in October 2022, a former...
To continue reading
Request your trial