McReady v. O'Malley

Decision Date31 March 2011
Docket NumberCase No. RWT 08cv2347.
Citation804 F.Supp.2d 427,275 Ed. Law Rep. 161
PartiesEdward C. McREADY, Plaintiff, v. Honorable Martin O'MALLEY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Edward C. McReady, Chevy Chase, MD, pro se.

Thomas Faulk, State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Edward McReady (Dr. McReady) was employed by University of Maryland University College (“UMUC”) as a Collegiate Associate Professor from December 11, 2005 until August 24, 2007. Plaintiff alleges that his contract was not renewed and that he was terminated for engaging in protected speech, and asserts claims for violations of the First Amendment and Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; abusive discharge from public employment; intentional interference with current and prospective contractual relations; defamation; and breach of contract. Defendants, the Honorable Martin O'Malley, UMUC, and various university staff members (collectively Defendants) moved for summary judgment, and Dr. McReady filed a Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 152 & 159. The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be granted and Dr. McReady's cross-motion for summary judgment shall be denied.

BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2005, Dr. McReady began employment with UMUC as a Collegiate Associate Professor with initial duties as the Assistant Academic Director of Accounting. Compl. (9/9/08), ¶ 15. In the spring of 2006, he applied for the Academic Director of Accounting position, but was not selected. He then asked to be removed from the Assistant Academic Director of Accounting position and be appointed as a 12–month, Collegiate Associate Professor at UMUC, which is primarily a teaching position. Id. ¶ 14, Defs.' Ex. 2. His request was honored, and Dr. McReady was assigned to teach in the Accounting Department beginning in August of 2006. Defs.' Ex. 2.

In July of 2006, Dr. Rhea Reed was hired as the Academic Director of Accounting. Defs.' Ex. 3 at 3. On August 29, 2009, Dr. Reed advised UMUC Accounting faculty members, including Dr. McReady, that the administration was considering adopting WileyPlus, a software program and collection of online teaching resources, for use in accounting courses. Defs.' Ex. 4.

During the fall of 2006, UMUC instituted a search to fill the vacant Assistant Academic Director of Accounting position that had been vacated by Dr. McReady. On December 20, 2006, Dr. Reed advised Dr. McReady that Dr. Greg von Lehmen, Interim Dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies and Interim Provost of Academic Affairs, was prepared to make an offer to a candidate for the position, and inquired whether Dr. McReady wanted to be inserted into the search for that position. Defs.' Ex. 7 at 32. Dr. McReady declined to be considered for the Assistant Director position at that time. Id.

After the candidate selected for the Assistant Director position declined the offer, Dr. McReady was again asked if he wanted to be considered for the position. Id. at 27–30. On January 14, 2007, Dr. McReady e-mailed Dr. Reed indicating he would be interested in returning to the Assistant Director position, but requested that they meet to “discuss some aspects of the position, e.g. duties, salary, term of contract, etc.” Id. at 27. Dr. McReady requested either a higher salary or a three year contract as a condition accompanying his possible re-appointment as the Assistant Director. Id. at 6–18. The administration denied both requests, and informed Dr. McReady on May 8, 2007, that he would be kept in his teaching position, rather than being rehired as Assistant Director. Id. at 6.

That same day, Dr. Reed assigned Dr. McReady to be the course chair for Intermediate Accounting courses. Defs.' Ex. 8 at 8. Dr. McReady questioned whether course chair duties were part of the duties required of him by his contract, and Dr. Reed replied that course chair duties arose from the disproportionately greater pay for 12–month faculty in spite of the similarity in responsibilities between 12–month and 9–month faculty. Id. at 7. Dr. McReady initially accepted the course chair duties, but later refused to serve as a course chair. Id. at 5.

On May 18, 2007, Dr. Reed informed Dr. McReady of the need to reassign him from a face-to-face section of ACCT 311 to an online section of ACCT 310, so that she could staff a new faculty member, Ira Holmes, to the face-to-face course. Defs.' Ex. 7 at 5. After Dr. McReady responded that he would prefer to keep the face-to-face course, Dr. Reed explained that Ira Holmes needed to be staffed to the face-to-face course because he had not yet taken the computer training necessary to teach the online course. Id. at 4. Dr. McReady persisted, writing several emails between May 21st and May 24th challenging Dr. Reed's decision to assign Professor Holmes to the face-to-face course. Id. at 3–4.

On May 23rd, Dr. McReady sought the intervention of Dr. von Lehmen and Dr. John Volpe, Assistant Dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies and head of UMUC's Business and Professional Programs Department. Defs.' Ex. 9 at 3. Dr. McReady questioned the “eleventh hour scheduling decision” made by Dr. Reed and stated that Dr. Reed had not “validate[d] her course scheduling decision. Id. Dr. McReady asked for a meeting with Drs. von Lehmen and Volpe because Dr. Reed had “refused to reconsider her decision.” Id. Drs. von Lehmen and Volpe declined to meet with Dr. McReady regarding Dr. Reed's scheduling decision and Dr. Volpe informed Dr. McReady that Dr. Reed, “made changes in summer course staffing for the good of the unit.” Id. at 5. He added, She and I are counting on your flexibility to pitch in and take on a different assignment.” Id. Still unsatisfied, Dr. McReady emailed Dr. Volpe challenging Dr. Volpe's assessment that the scheduling changes were for the good of the Department. Id. In addition, Dr. McReady argued that Ira Holmes was not capable of teaching the course to which he was assigned because he lacked teaching experience. Id. Dr. McReady demanded to know: “Whether there is any good and justifiable reason why [Dr. Reed] should have assigned one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, course in UMUC's Accounting courses to an individual who has absolutely no prior teaching experience whatsoever. If so, what is the reason that could possibly justify such a decision?” Id. at 9 (emphasis in original).

At this point, Dr. Reed became concerned with the increasingly hostile tone of Dr. McReady's emails. On May 23, 2007, Dr. Reed and Dr. Volpe discussed via email their concerns about the tone of Dr. McReady's communications and his insubordination. The emails stated:

Dr. Volpe: “I don't appreciate people that try to go around established chains of command.”

Dr. Reed: “Ed's refusal to let this go is starting to concern me—seems over the top doesn't it?”

Dr. Volpe: “Yes. It's troubling. I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to leave.”

Dr. Reed: “I would. Where else can he make the he's making here that would give him enough free time to write so many long emails about one decision?”

Dr. Reed: “[I]f he doesn't drop this soon, I'm going on the offensive (i.e., file a complaint somewhere), as I am feeling threatened by this angry-in-the-workplace individual who is overreacting to a routine matter. Perhaps if he became aware of that possibility, he would settle down. What do you think?

Dr. Volpe: “Let him make the next move. He will take his new assignment unflinchingly, take it on but carp and complain throughout, ask for a showdown meeting with [Dr. von Lehmen], Roger and me. I'm betting on one of the latter two possibilities, either of which will not standing him in good stead with any of us.”

Dr. Reed: “Thanks. But I hope he really isn't ‘angry workplace guy’ that ends up losing it! No one ever sees it coming—but after it happens they can all look back and see the indicators.”

Defs.' Ex. 9, at 7–8.

After his repeated demands regarding scheduling were denied, Dr. McReady requested to mentor Professor Holmes, and to visit Professor Holmes' class as part of Dr. McReady's course chair duties during the brief period of time that he acted as such. Concerned that Dr. McReady could not be objective when reviewing Dr. Holmes given his persistent objection to Holmes teaching the face-to-face course, Dr. Reed declined Dr. McReady's requests both to serve as Professor Holmes' mentor and to visit his class. Defs.' Ex. 12 at 7–8. On May 29th, in response to an interrogating email regarding when Dr. Reed assigned Professor Holmes another mentor, Dr. Reed forwarded the email to Dr. Volpe and asked, [h]ow much more of this do I have to put up with?” Defs.' Ex. 11 at 5.

On May 31st, Dr. Reed wrote Dr. Volpe that she was “feeling harassed-even menaced—by the persistence and tone of [Dr. McReady's] email messages to [her.] Defs.' Ex. 11 at 8. On June 4th, Drs. Volpe and Reed met with Dr. McReady to discuss their concerns with Dr. McReady's persistent refusal to accept the decisions made by Dr. Reed in her role as Academic Director. Defs.' Ex. 12. Dr. Reed testified that the meeting was hostile, uncomfortable, and confrontational, and stated that at that point she felt afraid to meet alone with Dr. McReady. Id. at 13–15.

On June 8th, one day after Dr. Reed placed a late-registering student in Dr. McReady's class, Dr. McReady emailed Drs. Reed and Volpe, “Please remove this student from my course IMMEDIATELY!” Defs.' Ex. 13 at 6 (capitalization in original). Over the next two days, Dr. McReady wrote numerous emails to Dr. Reed and his other supervisors protesting the decision to place the student in his class. Id. at 2–6. Eventually, Dr. von Lehmen had the student, referred to as Ms. H, placed in another course as a result of Dr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Connolly v. Lanham
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 2 Agosto 2023
    ... ... defamation for a statement of opinion-a defamation claim must ... be premised on a false statement of fact.” McReady ... v. O'Malley, ... 804 F.Supp.2d 427, 441 (D. Md. 2011), aff'd , 468 ... Fed.Appx. 391 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Gertz v. Robert ... ...
  • Robinson v. City of Mount Rainier
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 31 Marzo 2021
    ...99 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Peroutka v. Streng, 116 Md. App. 301, 319, 323, 695 A.2d 1287, 1296 (1997); see also McReady v. O'Malley, 804 F. Supp. 2d 427, 441 (D. Md. 2011), aff'd, 468 F. App'x 391 (4th Cir. 2012). However, "[i]f the facts from which a defendant forms his or her opinion are......
  • Schifanelli v. Queen Anne's Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 18 Agosto 2021
    ... ... campaign” is fairly construed as statement of opinion ... that is incapable of being proven true of false. See ... McReady" v. O'Malley, 804 F.Supp.2d 427, 442 (D.Md ... 2011) (finding that comments that plaintiff was an ... “angry workplace guy” who was \xE2" ... ...
  • Alston v. Trans Union, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 13 Noviembre 2014
    ...for Experian. This Court would be within its rights to deny the Motion solely on those procedural grounds. See McReady v. O'Malley, 804 F. Supp. 2d 427, 438 n. 5 (D. Md. 2011) (striking a motion for summary judgment filed in violation of Local Rule 105.2(c)). However, because the Court beli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Academic Freedom and Professorial Speech in the Post-garcetti World
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 37-01, September 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...Id. 207. Id. at 1163. 208. Id. at 1164. 209. Id. 210. Id. 211. Id. at 1169. 212. Id. 213. Id. at 1170; see also McReady v. O'Malley, 804 F. Supp. 2d 427 (D. Md. 2011), aff'd, 468 F. App'x 391 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 577 (2012) (granting university's motion for summary judg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT