Randolph v. Adt Sec. Serv. Inc

• Decision Date: 24 March 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. DKC 2009-1790.
• Citation: 701 F.Supp.2d 740
• Parties: Sharon RANDOLPH, et al.v.ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

701 F.Supp.2d 740

Sharon RANDOLPH, et al.v.ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

Civil Action No. DKC 2009-1790.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

March 24, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Nicholas Wyckoff Woodfield, Employment Law Group PLLC, Washington, DC, Robert Scott Oswald, The Employment Law Group PC, Washington, DC, for Sharon Randolph, et al.

John Byron Flood, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Washington, DC, for ADT Security Services, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this case is a motion to dismiss (Paper 9) filed by Defendant ADT Security Services, Inc. The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson were employed by Defendant ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) from December 1, 2008 until April 2009. (Paper 12 ¶ 9, 38). Plaintiffs are both Maryland residents. ( Id. at ¶ 5-6). Defendant is a Delaware corporation that does business in Maryland. ( Id. at ¶ 7).

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendant to be residential resales representatives. ( Id. at ¶ 9). Plaintiffs allege that their compensation as employees of ADT was “governed by the L3 pay plan, which provided Plaintiffs with set wages during the initial training period and then converted to a 100 percent commission plan.” ( Id. at ¶ 11). Plaintiffs assert that they complained to ADT's management regarding their compensation when they received their first paycheck because they believed their compensation was inadequate. ( Id. at ¶ 19). Plaintiffs' manager was Chancey Manwiller (“Manwiller”), the resale manager. Plaintiffs allege that they complained about their compensation to Cherise Young and Rick Terry, ADT fill-in managers, because Manwiller was on maternity leave. ( Id. at ¶ 31). When Manwiller returned from leave, Manwiller told Plaintiffs that it was too late for them to get back any bonuses or “kickers” that were not paid to them, but that Manwiller would correct any missing commissions. ( Id. at ¶ 22). Plaintiffs contend that they were never compensated for the missing commissions. ( Id.).

Plaintiffs allege that Manwiller told them not to complain about their compensation. Specifically, Plaintiffs maintain that Manwiller told Plaintiff Thompson to stop complaining or “she might get in trouble.” ( Id. at ¶ 24). Manwiller told both Plaintiffs, “It is too late to get the bonus or money that we owe you.” ( Id. at ¶ 25).

Plaintiffs complained to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (“DLLR”) that ADT was refusing to pay Plaintiffs compensation that Plaintiffs believed was owed to them, including overtime compensation Plaintiffs believed they were due because they worked more than forty hours per week. Plaintiffs provided DLLR with “proof of their hours and work performed and other information and documentation necessary to demonstrate that they were not being fully and properly compensated by ADT.” ( Id. at ¶ 27). DLLR sent a letter to ADT on or about April 2, 2009, notifying ADT that Plaintiffs had filed claims for unpaid compensation and that DLLR had initiated an investigation. ( Id. at ¶ 29).

On or about April 3, 2009, Plaintiff Thompson received a call from Manwiller and Teresa Meyers (“Meyers”), an ADT human resources representative. Manwiller asked Thompson if she had filed a complaint with DLLR and asked if Thompson had sent privileged information to DLLR. Thompson told Manwiller that she had not sent privileged information to DLLR, but Plaintiffs allege that Manwiller “declared” that Thompson had done so. ( Id. at ¶ 31-34). Plaintiffs allege that Meyers permanently suspended Thompson at this point in the conversation and told Thompson not to speak with any ADT employees or clients. ( Id. at ¶ 35). After their phone call with Thompson, Manwiller and Meyers contacted Randolph and also suspended her. ( Id. at ¶ 35). Soon thereafter, the DLLR investigator assigned to Plaintiffs' case informed them that “their claim had merit and that they should pursue it privately.” ( Id. at ¶ 37).

Plaintiffs received termination letters from Defendant that were dated April 10, 2009. ( Id. at ¶ 38). The letters stated that Plaintiffs were terminated because they “violated company policy that includes confidentiality agreements that are in [Defendant's] compensation plans for sales representatives, disclosing customers' personal data, and company confidential information to a third party.” ( Id. at ¶ 39).

On July 21, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint. (Paper 1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on September 3, 2009. (Paper 9). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009. (Paper 12). Count I of Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., by discharging Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs filed a complaint with DLLR. ( Id. at ¶ 40-46). “Count III” ¹ of the Amended Complaint asserts that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs' employment under the Maryland public policy exception to at-will employment. ( Id. at ¶ 47-53). Plaintiffs ask for injunctive and declaratory relief, damages to be determined at trial, prejudgment interest, “employment, reinstatement, promotion, front pay, or other equitable relief,” attorney's fees, and costs. ( Id. at 8-9). Defendant requested that the court consider its motion as moving to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint. (Paper 14).

II. Motion to DismissA. Standard of Review

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir.1999). Except in certain specified cases, a plaintiff's complaint need only satisfy the “simplified pleading standard” of Rule 8(a) Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Nevertheless, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). That showing must consist of more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

In its determination, the court must consider all well-pled allegations in a complaint as true Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994), and must construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993)). The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir.1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950, or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir.1979). See also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir.2009). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged, but it has not ‘show[n] ... that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Thus, “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

B. Analysis1. Fair Labor Standards Act

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for retaliatory discharge under the FLSA because Plaintiffs have not alleged that they engaged in a “protected activity” or filed an eligible “complaint” under § 215(a)(3) of the FLSA. (Paper 9, at 3-5). Defendant argues that § 215(a)(3) only covers activity “under or related to this chapter,” and that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has narrowly interpreted the scope of what constitutes a “complaint.” Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' action of filing a complaint with DLLR did not constitute a “complaint” under § 215(a)(3). Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs were excluded from coverage under § 215(a)(3) because, as commission-based employees, they were excluded from the Maryland Wage and Hour Law's coverage and so were not eligible to file a “complaint.”

Plaintiffs contend that in order to state a claim under § 215(a)(3) of the FLSA, Plaintiffs must allege that they had a reasonable, good faith belief that they were asserting rights that were protected under the FLSA and that Defendant was aware that they were doing so. (Paper 13, at 8). Plaintiffs assert that their count I should survive Defendant's motion to dismiss because they have alleged that they “held a reasonable, good faith belief that they had been misclassified as commissions based employees and that they had been inadequately compensated for overtime work performed for the Defendant.” ( Id.).

Enacted primarily to protect employees in the workplace, the FLSA imposes basic labor standards on covered employers such as Defendant. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 202, 206, 207; see also Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 292, 80 S.Ct. 332, 4 L.Ed.2d 323 (1960). To enforce the FLSA's workplace protections, Congress chose to rely primarily on “information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied” under...