Mian v. Paukstis, Civil Action No. PX 17-1971
| Decision Date | 02 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. PX 17-1971 |
| Parties | MOHAMMED A. MIAN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PAUKSTIS; HABITAT FOR HUMANITY METRO MARYLAND, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Pending before the Court in this employment case are two motions: a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants John Paukstis and Habitat for Humanity Metro Maryland, Inc. ("Paukstis" and "Habitat for Humanity," respectively) (ECF No. 6), and a motion for leave to file a reply to the Defendants' answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7) filed by Plaintiff Mohammad A. Mian ("Mian") (ECF No. 15). The issues are fully briefed, and, because no hearing is necessary, the Court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) and DENIES the motion to file under Rule 7(a)(7) (ECF No. 15).
Mian, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Paukstis and Habitat for Humanity1 which Mian styled as one for employment discrimination. ECF No. 1 at 1. Mian was a participant in the Jewish Council for the Aging's Senior Community Service Employment Program, which placed him as a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 4. Mianvolunteered with Habitat for Humanity for approximately one year and, in December 2015, wrote to express interest in being brought on as a regular employee. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5, ECF No. 1-4. Mian was informed that no positions were open. ECF No. 1-5 at 1, 1-7 at 2 (). Some weeks later, an assistant manager resigned, leaving a position open at the facility where Mian worked. Mian apparently was not informed of the vacancy, and another candidate was hired. ECF No. 1-5 at 1. Mian recognized that he did not meet the physical requirements of the assistant manager position. ECF No. 1-5 at 1.
At the same time, Mian alleges that a Habitat for Humanity employee who worked in the same facility as he did, Sharika, yelled at him on multiple occasions. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9, 10. Mian complained to Habitat for Humanity and to his contact at the Jewish Council for the Aging. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9, 12. Following a meeting between representatives of Habitat for Humanity and the Jewish Council for the Aging, which Mian declined to attend, Mian was informed that he would be reassigned to a different host site at which to volunteer. ECF No. 1-7 at 6, ECF No. 1 ¶ 11.
Mian thereafter filed a complaint with the Montgomery County Office of Human Rights ("MCOHR"). ECF No. 1 ¶ 14, ECF No. 1-7. The MCOHR found that no reasonable grounds existed to support an actionable claim. ECF No. 1-7 at 8. Mian appealed to the Case Review Board of the Human Rights Commission ("the Board"), which affirmed the MCOHR decision. ECF No. 1-9 at 1. This suit followed.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) properly is granted when a complaint does not include sufficient factual allegations to render the plaintiff's claims facially plausible, or to permit reasonable inference that thedefendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). To assess a motion to dismiss, a court takes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and makes all reasonable inferences in the favor of the plaintiff. Phillips v. Pitt Cty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 1999). A court may consider materials attached to the Complaint when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. However, when determining if a plaintiff has stated a valid claim, a court does not credit conclusory statements or a plaintiff's legal conclusions, even when the plaintiff purports them to be allegations of fact. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Giarrantano v. Jonson, 520 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). Further, "[a] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are not more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 665.
Because Mian is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his complaint liberally to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious case. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). Liberal construction requires that if the Court can reasonably read the Complaint to state a valid claim, it must do so; however, the Court cannot ignore a clear failure to allege facts setting forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) ( ). The Court is not "required to recognize obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither should the Court Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
As an initial matter, the Court cannot grant Mian's requested relief, which he styles as "Solicitation," in his Complaint. ECF No. 1 at 7. Mian's requested relief reads in full:2
As the Defendants point out, the relief requested by Mian suggests that his action should be construed as one to vacate and remand the Board's decision. Such a cause of action does notexist. To the extent that Mian seeks, effectively, appellate review of the Board's decision, his Complaint must be dismissed.
To the extent that Mian seeks to bring an action under Title VII or analogous state or county law, the Complaint—construed as liberally as possible without "conjur[ing] up questions" that Mian has not presented—fails to allege facts that plausibly make out a right to relief.
Mian's complaint largely centers around Habitat for Humanity's failure to hire him for the position of assistant manager. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 7. To sustain a failure-to-hire discrimination claim, Mian must aver facts sufficient to show that: "(i) he belongs to a protected class, (ii) he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, (iii) despite his qualifications, he was rejected, and (iv) after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of his qualifications." EEOC v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 243 F.3d 846, 851 (4th Cir. 2001).
In this case, Mian has failed to allege facts sufficient to support prongs (ii), (iii), and (iv) above. As to prong (ii), it is unclear whether Mian applied to the assistant manager position—Mian expressed a generalized interest in being hired by Habitat for Humanity at a time when no positions were open, see ECF No. 1-4; ECF No. 1-7 at 4, 5, but Mian did not expressly apply when the assistant manager position opened some weeks later, see ECF No. 1-7 at 4.
Alternatively, even if Mian's general expression of interest in working for Habitat for Humanity properly is taken as an application for the assistant manager position (or if Habitat for Humanity engaged in other illicit behavior during the application process), Mian has failed to allege plausibly that he was qualified for the position. Mian indeed admitted to Habitat forHumanity, "I know I was not able to compete physically being of 75," and attached this admission to his Complaint, ECF No. 1-5 at 1; see ECF No. 1-7 at 3 (). Mian has not alleged any other facts demonstrating that he was qualified for the assistant manager position.
Similarly, Mian has not alleged facts that show he was rejected despite such qualifications, as required for prong (iii) of the prima facie showing. As for prong (iv), Mian has not alleged facts to suggest that the position remained open and that Habitat for Humanity sought out other applicants with Mian's qualifications. Indeed, his Complaint and the supporting documents suggest that the position was filled with someone who met the physical qualifications of the position.
Mian's Complaint similarly cannot state a claim premised on a hostile work environment. To sustain such an action under Title VII, a plaintiff must plead facts to support that the complained-of conduct was: (1) unwelcome, (2) based on a protected characteristic, (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial