Rowlett v. Balt. City Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 21-1205-BPG |
| Parties | JASMIN ROWLETT, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Jasmin Rowlett (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against her employer, the Baltimore City Police Department (“Defendant” or “BPD”) alleging various claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. ECF 1. Before the Court is Defendant Baltimore City Police Department's (“Defendant's” or “the BPD's”) pending motion for summary judgment, ECF 52 (hereinafter “the Motion”).[1] The Motion includes a memorandum of law and exhibits.[2] The Court has reviewed all relevant filings, including Plaintiff's opposition, ECF 53, and the BPD's reply, ECF 56, and finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the BPD's Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is an African American woman who has been employed by the BPD since 2009. ECF 53-6, at 5. She worked as a “regular patrol officer” in the Southern District until 2016 Id.
Plaintiff was then promoted to sergeant and transferred to the Central District, where she worked until 2018. Id. at 7. In 2019, Plaintiff transferred to the Northeastern District after a period of medical leave. Id. at 9. As of her deposition in April 2022 Plaintiff is still a sergeant in the Northeastern District. Id. at 10. Plaintiff's duties as a sergeant include “attend[ing] roll call, coordinat[ing] vehicles for her subordinate officers, and inform[ing] these officers of their assignments for the day,” as well as “log[ging] her work into a computer, answer[ing] calls for service, provid[ing] location support to subordinate officers, . . . ensur[ing] that subordinate officers are fulfilling their duties,” and “reading and signing reports authored by her subordinates.” ECF 53-2, at 2. Plaintiff has had several supervisors in the Northeastern, but Lieutenant Effland (“Lt. Effland”) was her direct supervisor for most of Plaintiff's time there, and Lieutenant Merino (“Lt. Merino”) was Plaintiff's supervisor for a short amount of time after that. ECF 53-6, at 1011. Major Natalie Preston (“Maj. Preston”) was the major in the Northeastern until October 2020. Id. at 11.
From December 17 through December 28, 2019, Plaintiff was working “out-of-title” as a lieutenant. ECF 52-4, at 11. Around this time, Plaintiff found out she was pregnant and due in August 2020. ECF 53-6, at 24. Plaintiff worked only three days between December 31, 2019, and February 2, 2020. ECF 52-5, at 1-2; ECF 53-2, at 3. The bulk of these absences were categorized as unscheduled Leave Without Pay (“LWOP”). ECF 52-5, at 1-2; ECF 53-2, at 3-4. On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff texted Maj. Preston: ECF 52-6, at 30. Plaintiff and Maj. Preston met in Maj. Preston's office on February 1, 2020, and Plaintiff told Maj. Preston that she was pregnant. ECF 53-6, at 25-26; ECF 52-6, at 2. Following that meeting, Maj. Preston permitted Plaintiff to work four hours of her eight-hour shifts performing only administrative duties, while still getting paid for full-time work. ECF 53-6, at 25-26; ECF 52-6, at 2.
BPDPolicy 1725 (Pregnancy) permits pregnant officers to work an alternate “maternity duty” assignment instead of full duty if “the member so requests in writing and presents a letter from her treating physician outlining any restrictions on the member's ability to perform in her current assignment.” ECF 52-9, at 1. When a pregnant officer informs the officer's Command about the pregnancy, “Command shall notify [Human Resources Section (“HR”)]” immediately. Id. Then, HR employees will inform the pregnant officer of their accommodation options. Id. Ultimately, “[t]he Commanding Officer of the affected member shall make the determination, regarding the member's assignment.” Id. at 2. Policy 1725 further describes that the “Maternity Duty Option” is available “upon written recommendation of a physician.” Id. Id.
On February 4, 2020, Maj. Preston instructed Plaintiff to finish her seven outstanding use-of-force reports (“UOFs”), and Plaintiff acknowledged the instruction. EF 52-7, at 73. UOFs are reports detailing how and why a police officer used force on a member of the public. ECF 52-6, at 3; ECF 53-2, at 6. UOFs are used in internal review processes, external review processes like the Consent Decree, and criminal prosecutions. ECF 52-6, at 3; ECF 53-2, at 6. Some of Plaintiff's outstanding UOFs extended back to her time at the Central District from which she transferred in 2018. ECF 52-7, at 78-79; ECF 52-7, at 97. Maj. Preston again instructed Plaintiff to complete her UOFs in late February. ECF 52-7, at 79. Plaintiff maintains that she had been working on them and that it was common for BPD officers to have outstanding UOFs. ECF 53-2, at 7.
Plaintiff and Maj. Preston continued to communicate regarding Plaintiff's pregnancy and her outstanding UOFs through March. On March 8, 2020, Maj. Preston asked Plaintiff for documentation to support her pregnancy-based accommodation request. ECF 52-6, at 3. On March 21, 2020, Maj. Preston texted Plaintiff, again instructing her to complete her UOFs and setting March 25, 2020, as the deadline. ECF 52-6, at 48. On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff signed a settlement agreement regarding an unrelated complaint she had previously filed in this Court. ECF 12. On March 29, Maj. Preston emailed Plaintiff the following:
I made a request that you bring in documentation to support your request for a reasonable accommodation and as of this date, I have yet to receive the requested information. Until I receive the information that I requested regarding your accommodation request is received [sic], and we meet to discuss if and how I may be able to accommodate you in the future, you are required to work with your shift 094 for the entire shift, attend roll call/report to shift commander, follow your same leave group, and your shift schedule. In addition, you will complete all administrative duties of your shift, to include the review and completeness of reports taken during your shift, the entry and update of lotus notes, and any other administrative duties deemed necessary by your Lieutenant and shift commander.
ECF 52-8, at 2. Maj. Preston also noted “you need to work on your delinquent UOF from the central district, your notes are not acceptable,” and reminded Plaintiff that she had missed the March 25, 2020, deadline for submitting the reports. Id. On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff responded:
During our phone call where you requested documentation for my accommodation, I advised you that I had a doctors appointment on March 26, 2020 where I would request a note from my doctor and you said that would be fine. That task has been completed as you asked and is attached below.
Id. at 1. Attached to Plaintiff's email was a note on Perinatal Associates at GBMC letterhead dated “3/30/2020” and signed by Noel A Benny, MA. Id. at 3. The note states in its entirety:
Id. Plaintiff reports that she worked four hours on March 31, 2020, and then “left.” ECF 53-6, at 30. Plaintiff testified that she did not return to work after that because she “had no choice but to go out on medical” because Maj. Preston had not responded to her email that she had sent earlier in the day. ECF 53-6, at 29-30.
The next day, April 1, Plaintiff “called the front desk” at the Northeastern District and notified the phone operator that she was “calling out.” Id. at 32. Though Plaintiff does not recall specifically, she acknowledges that she may have told the operator that she was not returning to work until an “unknown return date.” Id. BPD records reflect that Plaintiff took sick leave on April 1 and was placed on “LWOP - Sick Unscheduled” for the remainder of the year. Id. at 32; ECF 52-5, at 5-18; ECF 53-2, at 15 (). Plaintiff contends that she chose not to return because of the “toxic, hazardous and stressful work environment” created by Maj. Preston and because of her fear of contracting COVID-19. ECF 52-7, at 10-11; ECF 52-12, at 2.
Plaintiff alleges that in April of 2020, while she was “out” on leave, Sergeant Hood (“Sgt. Hood”)-whom she had previously accused of sexually harassing her since November 2019- texted her to inform her that Maj. Preston had ordered Sgt. Hood to take over her desk.[3] ECF 536, at 36-37. Plaintiff testified that she informed Maj. Preston of that alleged sexual harassment in November 2019. Id. at 37.
On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Maj Preston and Sgt. Hood with the BPD's Equal Opportunity Diversity Section (“EODS”). ECF 52-7, at 1. On April 22, Plaintiff reached out to HR “to see how [she] can start receiving pay again” as she was “currently out of work in a no pay status due to an extremely high risk pregnancy and fear of contracting COVID 19 with lack of safe working environment within the department.” ECF 52-12, at 2. That same day, HR informed Plaintiff that she could apply for FMLA or an accommodation under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial