Mua v. Md. Office of the Attorney Gen., Civil No. PJM 14-2070

Decision Date30 March 2016
Docket NumberCivil No. PJM 14-2334,Civil No. PJM 14-2070,Civil No. PJM 15-2249
PartiesJOSEPHAT MUA Plaintiff, v. THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL et al. Defendants. JOSEPHAT MUA Plaintiff, v. THE O'NEAL FIRM LLP et al. Defendants. JOSEPHAT MUA Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al. Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Josephat Mua, pro se, has brought three related suits that are the subject of this Opinion. These suits follow the Court's stay of Mua's prior suit brought pursuant to Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Mua v. The Board of Prince George's County, Civ. No. 11-1198-PJM ("Mua I"). In the three latter suits, Mua v. The Maryland Office of the Attorney General et al., Civ. No. 14-2070-PJM ("Mua II"), Mua v. The O'Neal Firm LLP et al., Civ. No. 14-2334 ("Mua III"), and Mua v. The Board of Education of Prince George's County et al., Civ. No. 15-2249 ("Mua IV"), Mua asserts multiple claims against a total of nineteen Defendants that arise out of an alleged conspiracy to deny him justice following his termination from employment by the Prince George's County Public School System.1

Having reviewed the extensive pleadings in all three suits, the Court will GRANT Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss and will DISMISS all the suits as to all Defendants. The Court finds that the Amended Complaints in Mua II and Mua IV fail to state a basis on which relief may be granted, and that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in Mua III as to eleven Defendants. As to the two remaining Defendants in Mua III, the Association of Supervisory and Administrative School Personnel ("ASASP") and the Maryland State Education Association ("MSEA"), the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief in regard to the federal claims, and the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

I.

In his three suits against nineteen Defendants, Mua asserts fifty-five claims and seeksdamages in the tens of millions of dollars, as well as equitable relief. See Mua II, Amend. Compl., ECF No. 8; Mua III, Amend. Compl., ECF No. 7; Mua IV, Amend. Compl., ECF No. 4.

In Mua II, the Defendants are Prince George's County and the State of Maryland—specifically the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, the Maryland State Department of Education, and Maryland State Treasurer Nancy Kopp.

In Mua III, the Defendants include Mua's former counsel in proceedings related to his termination: The O'Neal Firm, LLP; Sullivan, Talbott & Batt; Bryan Chapman, Esquire; RMA & Associates, LLC; Robert E. Cappell, Esquire; and C. Sukari Hardnett, LLC, which has also been sued under the name Hardnett & Associates. Other Defendants in Mua III consist of opposing counsel for the Board of Education of Prince George's County, Thatcher Law Firm and Pessin Katz Law, P.A.; two unions, MSEA and ASASP; a private contractor providing court transcript services, Bradford Associates; and, once again, the Maryland State Department of Education.

In Mua IV, the only Defendants remaining are two additional unions, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("AFSCME International") and American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees Local 2250 ("AFSCME Local 2250").2

In Mua II, against the State and County Defendants, Mua alleges violations of due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, conspiracy, fraud, racketeering, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process, among others. See Mua II, Amend Compl., ECF No. 8.

In Mua III, Mua's claims overlap substantially with those made in Mua II, with Defendants purportedly participating in the same conspiracy, but the suit adds claims against unions MSEA and ASASP such as alleged violations of the duty of fair representation pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, as well as various tort and contract claims against all of Mua's former attorneys. See Mua III, Amend Compl., ECF No. 7.

In Mua IV, following the Court's dismissal of the suit as to thirteen of the Defendants—most of whom were related in some way to the Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant in Mua I, the underlying Title VII suit—the Amended Complaint focuses primarily on Mua's claims against unions AFSCME Local 2250 and AFSCME International for purported violations of the duty of fair representation. See Mua IV, Memorandum Order, ECF No. 2; Amend. Compl., ECF No. 4.

A.

The key background facts are as follows:3

Mua, who was born in Kenya, was employed as a fulltime teacher in the Prince George's County Public Schools ("PGCPS") from 2002 to 2007. Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19. In 2007, he moved to the position of IT Technician. Id. ¶¶ 20, 26. Because he was no longer a teacher, Mua's labor union membership changed from the Prince George's County Educator's Association (PGCEA) to AFSCME Local 2250, a union for support staff. Id. ¶¶ 18-20 & 20 n.1. While employed as an IT technician, Mua states that he reported on activity in his school that he believed was illegal, including his belief that teachers were removing IT equipment and not returning it. See id. ¶¶ 21-25, 27-28, 35-38.

In 2009, Mua was transferred to the PGCPS Help Desk, another IT position at a different location. Mua I, Amend. Compl. ¶ 25, ECF No. 16. He alleges that his supervisors at the Help Desk called him derogatory names based on his national origin. See id. ¶¶ 27-46; Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 41. Then, in a letter dated March 24, 2010, he was notified by his supervisor of PGCPS's intent to terminate him. Mua I, Amend. Compl. ¶ 51. Mua filed a claim of retaliation and discrimination based on national origin against PGCPS with the EEOC on April 20, 2010. See id. ¶ 52. He was terminated from his position on June 18, 2010, based on what the letter described as "overall job performance." Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 48. Mua asserts, however, that the real reason he was terminated was discrimination and retaliation. See Mua I, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 52, 64-66, 72-74.

Mua appealed his termination to the Board of Education for Prince George's County ("County Board") on June 30, 2010. Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 48. Prior to the hearing before the County Board, PGCPS decided that the appeal fell under Maryland Education Code Section 6-202, which applies to teachers, see id. ¶ 50, instead of under Section 4-205(c) which applies to non-certificate positions including IT staff. See Md. Code Ann. Educ. §§ 6-202, 4-205(c); Mua II, Pl.'s Status Report, Ex. 13, Mua v. Prince George's Cnty. Pub. Schs., OAH No. MSDE-BE-01-12-32309, Proposed Ruling Mot. Summ. Decision (Md. Office of Admin. Hr'gs Nov. 26, 2012) ("OAH Proposed Ruling"), ECF No. 3-13; Mua II, Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, Ex. 3, Mua v. Prince George's Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Op. No. 13-34, at 6 (Md. State Bd. of Educ. June 25, 2013) ("Md. State Bd. of Educ. Op."), ECF No. 13-7.4 Accordingly, on February 14, 2011, the appealwas referred to Hearing Officer Robert Troll, who held a hearing on the matter on several dates from July to October 2011. See Md. State Bd. of Educ. Op. at 7; Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 48. In a proposed decision issued January 19, 2012, Hearing Officer Troll concluded that Mua could appropriately be terminated for misconduct, insubordination, and incompetence. See Md. State Bd. of Educ. Op. at 7. On July 11, 2012, the County Board adopted the proposed decision to terminate Mua. Id.

Mua appealed the decision of the County Board to the Maryland State Board of Education ("State Board"), which referred the case to Administrative Law Judge Brian Zlotnick of the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") for a "proposed ruling." See id. at 7-8; OAH Proposed Ruling, ECF No. 3-13; Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 51. On November 26, 2012, ALJ Zlotnick issued a "Proposed Ruling on Motion for Summary Decision," finding that Mua should have been treated as a non-certificate employee under Maryland Education Code Section 4-205(c), which entitled him to an initial hearing within 30 days of the decision. See OAH Proposed Ruling at 7-8. Because the County Board failed to hold the hearing within 30 days, OAH found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, but also concluded that Mua should be reinstated with back pay. See id. at 8-9; Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 51. The County Board appealed the proposed decision to the State Board. See Md. State Bd. of Educ. Op. at 8; Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 52.

The State Board heard oral argument from Mua and counsel for the County Board on May 21, 2013; then, in a decision issued on June 25, 2013, it disagreed with OAH's determination and affirmed the County Board's decision to terminate Mua. See Md. State Bd. of Educ. Op. at 8; Mua II, Amend. Compl. ¶ 59. The State Board reasoned that Mua had in factbeen afforded greater due process rights under Section 6-202 than he would have received under Section 4-205(c), including the fact that the burden of proof was placed on PGCPS to justify the termination rather than on Mua to demonstrate the impropriety of the termination. Md. State Bd. of Educ. Op. at 9-10. While Section 6-202 did not provide for a hearing within 30 days, the State Board reasoned that, under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), and other cases, and given a number of extenuating circumstances, the delay of one year in holding a hearing was not unconstitutionally lengthy. Id. at 11-12.

Mua appealed the State Board's decision to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and when the Circuit Court affirmed the State Board on April 7, 2014, he appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, where the case is still pending. See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. for Prince George's Cnty., No. CAL 13-18946 (Cir. Ct. Prince George's Cnty. Apr. 7, 2014) (order affirming State Board decision), ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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