Maryland Nat. Capital Park & Planning Com'n v. Crawford
Decision Date | 01 September 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 894,894 |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Parties | , 34 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1731, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,173 MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION, et al. v. Elsie CRAWFORD. , |
Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Diana G. Motz and Robert A. Zarnoch, Asst. Attys. Gen., for amicus curiae, State of Md.
Karl G. Feissner, Hyattsville, with whom were John E. Beckman, Jr., Laurie D. Lewis and Feissner & Beckman, Hyattsville, on the brief, for appellee.
Argued before MOYLAN, WEANT and ALPERT, JJ.
The principal issue presented in this case is whether an employer engages in unlawful employment practices 1 proscribed by state and federal civil rights laws by failing to
comply with the strictures of its own affirmative action plan. This case also requires our consideration of whether exhaustion of State administrative and statutory remedies is a prerequisite prior to bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Federal statute permitting civil actions for alleged deprivations of constitutional or statutory rights. 2
The following facts may be gleaned from the pleadings and exhibits filed by both parties in the action below.
Commencing in November of 1980, Elsie Crawford, appellee, a white female, was employed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 3 (the Commission) as a Secretary III. In this capacity Crawford, among other duties, supervised four other Commission employees and was responsible for editing and correcting the work of 29 professionals and four clerical/secretarial employees. Although her performance had been rated Very Good (less than Exceptional but superior to Good), Crawford desired a lateral transfer to a position with less supervisory duties. Such a position became available on August 6, 1982, when the Commission announced recruitment for a Career Merit System Position Administrative Typist III, Grade 10, in the Prince George's County Department of Parks & Recreation On September 3, 1982, the Employee Relations and Development Office forwarded 34 applications to Marye Wells, Associate Director of Parks & Recreation, appellant, stating that those 34 applicants were eligible for consideration for the typist position. The list was winnowed to five candidates; Crawford was one of these five candidates. On October 29, 1982, a panel consisting of John M. Walton, Jr., Coordinator of the Commission's History Division, Frances Hagye, Secretary to the Director of Parks & Recreation, and Bianca Floyd, Manager of the Prince George's County Black History Project, interviewed four candidates. 4 Crawford was unanimously selected to be the most fully qualified for the position and was listed by the panel as their first choice. Ranked second was Nadine Callahan, a minority (black) applicant.
History Division. Crawford received a memorandum from a Commission Personnel Technician alerting her to this announcement and encouraging her to apply for this position. Duly interested, Crawford applied.
Sometime within the following week Walton contacted Wells. Walton explained that Hagye had informed him that the subject position was in a deficient class (job category) which had not met the established goals of a Conciliation Agreement entered into by the Commission with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Hagye had further explained to him that Commission Executive Director Thomas H. Countee Jr., appellant, had recently granted a "concurrence" or exception to the EEOC agreement in this employment category and that the next position should be filled by a minority. 5 Walton queried whether On October 29, 1982, the panel, through a detailed memorandum authored by John Walton, forwarded its recommendation to Wells. This memorandum provided six reasons why the panel believed that Crawford was "clearly more qualified" than the second-ranked Callahan. 6 Upon a review of this memorandum, Wells failed to discern a clear explanation for the panel's recommendation of Crawford over Callahan. According to Wells, her further questioning of Walton elicited that the only specific difference between the candidates was that Crawford had more work experience and had worked with the Commission. Wells informed Walton that work with the Commission was not an adequate reason for requesting an exception ("concurrence") to the EEOC conciliation agreement. Wells next spoke with Hagye. Hagye also indicated that Crawford's edge was due to her experience with the Commission. When questioned by Wells as to Callahan's ability to handle the On November 2, 1982, Wells submitted a memorandum recommending that Callahan be hired for the Administrative Typist III position. Wells identified the vacancy as a deficient class (job category) under the EEOC agreement and Callahan as a minority applicant. Robey approved the recommendation and forwarded it to the Employee Relations and Development Office for processing.
this information meant he was compelled to hire a minority candidate. Wells responded that the EEOC agreement indicated that in order for a non-minority candidate to receive the position, that candidate must be clearly superior to the minority candidate. Wells further stated that the final decision for hiring rested with Countee as the Commission's Executive Director. When asked for his recommendation, Walton indicated that he believed that Crawford, the non-minority candidate, should be offered the position. Wells instructed him to submit a memorandum of the panel's findings. In the meantime, she intended to investigate further the requirements of the EEOC agreement position, Hagye assured her that Callahan was a good candidate. Wells told Hagye she would continue her review of the applicants and forward her recommendation to the Commission's Director of Parks and Recreation, Hugh B. Robey, appellant, for his approval. Wells recontacted Walton and informed him she would rewrite his memorandum and forward it to Robey.
At trial, Crawford testified that she was informed she had been denied the lateral transfer in mid-November. She called Walton to determine why she did not receive the job. Walton explained Walton also stated that "[Crawford] has been rejected based upon race because the job had to go to a minority."
requested that the matter be submitted to Director of Parks
& Recreation Robey and Executive Director Countee for their
findings and recommendations.
January 11, In a "Grievance Response Form" addressed
1983
to Commission Executive Director Countee, Director of Parks
& Recreation Robey stated that he had communicated with the
interview panel and learned that Crawford was the panel's
first choice. He pointed out, however, that the commission's
conciliation agreement with the EEOC mandated the hiring of
minorities in "effected classes." As the subject position
fell within an "effected class," Robey concurred with Well's
recommendation to hire Callahan over Crawford.
January 17, Crawford noted an appeal to Executive Director
1983
Thomas H. Countee Jr.
February 10, Crawford filed a declaration in the Circuit
1983
Court for Prince George's County alleging the action of the
Commission, Countee, Wells and Robey amounted to racial
discrimination in violation of her civil rights as guaranteed
by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the United States Constitution, and the
Maryland Constitution. Additionally, Crawford alleged that the
Commission, Countee and Wells had conspired to prevent Crawford
from appealing the action because of her race. Crawford sought
monetary damages and a lateral transfer to the position of
Administrative Typist III.
February 17, Pursuant to the Commission's Merit System
1983
Rules and Regulations, Crawford appealed Countee's decision
to the Merit Service Board of the Commission.
March 2, 1983 Appellants filed a demurrer to Crawford's
declaration in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
contending that the action was premature in that the
administrative grievance procedures were pending.
March 7, 1983 A hearing was held on appellants' demurrer before
April 8, 1983 Judge Bowen overruled appellants' demurrer
and ordered that the case be set in for trial forthwith.
April 15, 1983 The Merit System Board affirmed Countee's
findings, discerning "no misapplication or misinterpretation
of Commission rules, regulations or policies in non-selecting
[Crawford] for the vacancy in question because of her race."
A trial on the merits was conducted on June 1 and 2, 1983, before Judge Bowen. In addition to receiving evidence as to the aforementioned facts, Judge Bowen heard the following testimony from Frances Hagye. Regarding Marye Wells' rewriting of the interview panel's hiring recommendation memorandum, Ms. Hagye related that she had never heard of such a practice in her sixteen and a-half years with the Commission. The following colloquy transpired later in Ms. Hagye's testimony:
Q [By appellee's counsel:] Do you know any basis, other than the color of Mrs. Crawford's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Com'n v. Crawford
...Court of Special Appeals held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to maintaining a § 1983 action. 59 Md.App. at 290-291, 475 A.2d 494. With regard to the merits, the intermediate appellate court held that "ample evidence was adduced to permit Judge Bowen to find......
-
Bohle v. Thompson
...to assess attorney's fees, see Kirsner v. Edelmann, 65 Md.App. 185, 193, 499 A.2d 1313 (1985); Maryland Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Crawford, 59 Md.App. 276, 304, 475 A.2d 494 (1984), aff.d, 307 Md. 1, 511 A.2d 1079 (1986), or the determination that attorney's fees "did not affe......
-
Priester v. Balt. Cnty.
...Comm'n v. Crawford, this Court found that a sixth exception exists for civil actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 59 Md.App. 276, 290, 475 A.2d 494, 501 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Maryland–Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Crawford, 307 Md. 1, 511 A.2d 1079 (1986).17 Priester is correct......
-
Earle v. Gunnell, 788
...must be exhausted prior to proceeding with a § 1983 action was previously decided by this Court in Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Comm'n v. Crawford, 59 Md.App. 276, 475 A.2d 494 (1984), aff'd 307 Md. 1, 511 A.2d 1079 (1986). We held in that case that "Crawford was not required to exhaust the admin......