Ortiz v. Balt. Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 07 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL SAG-22-01396 |
| Parties | ADRIAN ORTIZ Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Adrian Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against his employer, Defendant Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”), asserting claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of state and federal law. ECF 1. BPD filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, ECF 7. The issues have been fully briefed, ECF 10, 13, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, BPD's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are derived from the Complaint, ECF 1, and are taken as true for purposes of evaluating BPD's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff a self-described Hispanic male, joined BPD in 2014 and currently works as a Police Officer. ECF 1 ¶¶ 2, 20. In December, 2018, a “fellow Hispanic Officer” filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) complaint alleging that the BPD discriminated against him based on race, sex, national origin, and retaliation. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff “was named as a witness” in relation to that action, causing “numerous supervisors” to approach him and advise that he “had a target on his back” due to his involvement with the other officer's discrimination claims. Id. ¶¶ 21, 22.
In May 2020, BPD charged Plaintiff with neglect of duty for failure to write a motor vehicle accident report during a traffic incident in December, 2015. Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff was the only officer charged in that incident, despite the presence of at least one other officer at the scene. Id. Plaintiff was required to attend a refresher course for motor vehicle accidents. Id.
In October, 2020, while off-duty, Plaintiff was transported to Central Booking for driving under the influence (“DUI”). Id. ¶¶ 28, 30. He was initially transported to the hospital but was released to the responding officers without medical treatment. Id. The officers took him to headquarters where Internal Affairs administered a breathalyzer. Id. ¶ 29. He was placed in handcuffs and retained at Central Booking wearing a police shirt, which placed him in danger from other detainees. Id. ¶ 30. Following that incident, which was Plaintiff's second DUI, BPD placed Plaintiff on suspension. Id. ¶ 31.[1]In February 2021, BPD's Health Services Supervisor advised Plaintiff that he would be offered termination as a punishment for his second DUI, with the option of a Trial Board Hearing to fight the termination. Id. ¶ 31.
In April, 2021, BPD again charged Plaintiff with neglect of duty for failing to carry out certain administrative tasks in connection with another motor vehicle accident in June, 2020, despite the existence of body worn camera footage demonstrating that another officer had promised to handle those tasks. Id. ¶ 25. The other officers on the scene were not charged. Id. On February 8, 2022, Internal Affairs advised Plaintiff that he would receive a non-punitive counseling letter for the early termination of his body-worn camera. Id. ¶ 26. He later received additional charges for the same incident. Id.
During Plaintiff's suspension, BPD assigned its officers to permanent shifts. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff put in a bid for the shift he wanted based on his seniority. Id. However, Plaintiff did not receive his requested (or any other) shift assignment. Id. ¶ 33.
In February, 2022, the Central District Shift Commander offered Plaintiff overtime at the Central District front desk, despite his ongoing suspension. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff accepted, but then was told that he could no longer work overtime because he remained suspended. Id. “Based on reason and belief” other suspended officers continued to work overtime. Id.
Plaintiff received a right to sue letter on March 9, 2022 and filed the instant complaint in June, 2022. Id. ¶ 9.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss. See In re Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). That rule provides that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with “fair notice” of the claims and the “grounds” for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (“Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions[.]”) (quotation omitted); see also Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 112 (4th Cir. 2017). However, a plaintiff need not include “detailed factual allegations” in order to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Further, federal pleading rules “do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.” Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 11 (2014) (per curiam).
Nevertheless, the rule demands more than bald accusations or mere speculation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). If a complaint provides no more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” it is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rather, to satisfy the minimal requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), the complaint must set forth “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest” a cognizable cause of action, “even if . . . [the] actual proof of those facts is improbable and . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint” and must “draw all reasonable inferences [from those facts] in favor of the plaintiff.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see Semenova v. Md. Transit Admin., 845 F.3d 564, 567 (4th Cir. 2017); Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 484 (4th Cir. 2015); Kendall v. Balcerzak, 650 F.3d 515, 522 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 943 (2011). However, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions drawn from the facts. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). “A court decides whether [the pleading] standard is met by separating the legal conclusions from the factual allegations, assuming the truth of only the factual allegations, and then determining whether those allegations allow the court to reasonably infer” that the plaintiff is entitled to the legal remedy sought. A Soc'y Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 937 (2012).
Federal courts may consider documents incorporated into a complaint by reference without converting a 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Sec'y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Similarly, federal courts analyzing a motion to dismiss routinely consider EEOC charges and related documents, even if such documents are not filed with the Complaint. See Stennis v. Bowie State Univ., 236 F.Supp.3d 903, 907 n. 1 (D. Md. 2017) (); Bowie v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys., No. ELH-14-03216, 2015 WL 1499465, at *3 n.4 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2015).
In Counts I, II, III and VI, Plaintiff alleges that BPD unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his race, national origin, and gender in violation of Title VII and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”).[2] Initially, this Court agrees with BPD that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust those claims. His EEOC charge, dated March 10, 2021, was filed after his second DUI incident and after he had been recommended for termination. ECF 7-5 at 2. The EEOC charge does not state, or insinuate in any way, that those incidents were motivated by Plaintiff's race, national origin, or gender. Id. Instead, the EEOC charge expressly asserts that the allegedly differential treatment was attributable to Plaintiff's status as a witness to the discrimination charge filed by another officer. Id.
To assert a Title VII claim in federal court, a plaintiff must first exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC. Sawyers v. United Parcel Serv., 946 F.Supp.2d 432, 438 (D. Md. 2013). Although an “EEOC charge defines the scope of the plaintiff's right to institute a civil suit,” it “does not strictly limit a Title VII suit which may follow.” Miles v Dell, Inc., 429 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002)). “[R]ather, the scope...
To continue reading
Request your trial