Royster v. Gahler

• Decision Date: 31 December 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. ELH-15-1843
• Citation: 154 F.Supp.3d 206
• Parties: Angela Royster, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey R. Gahler, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

154 F.Supp.3d 206

Angela Royster, Plaintiff,

v.Jeffrey R. Gahler, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-15-1843

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Signed December 31, 2015

Morris Eli Fischer, Morris E. Fischer LLC, Silver Spring, MD, for Plaintiff.

Kristin Lynn Lewis Noon, Bel Air, MD, Jason Lee Levine, Office of the Attorney General, Annapolis, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge

In an Amended Complaint (ECF 5) filed in July 2015, Angela Royster, plaintiff, filed suit against two defendants: Jeffrey R. Gahler, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Harford County, and the State of Maryland. She alleges age discrimination in employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ; hostile and abusive work environment, in violation of the ADEA; and retaliation, in violation of the ADEA.¹

Defendants have moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF 10), supported by a memorandum (ECF 10-1) (collectively, “Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 14-1) (collectively, “Opposition”), to which defendants have replied. ECF 16, “Reply.”

After defendants moved to dismiss, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. ECF 12, “Motion to Amend.” She seeks to add a claim against defendants for age discrimination under Maryland law, pursuant to Md. Code (2009 Repl. Vol., 2011 Supp.), § 20–606 of the State Government Article (“S.G.”). The Motion to Amend is supported by the proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF 12-1) and a letter from plaintiff's counsel to Nancy Kopp, Maryland Treasurer, dated August 27, 2015. ECF 12-3, “Letter to Treasurer.” The Letter to Treasurer states that it is intended to provide the Treasurer with notice of plaintiff's suit against defendants, “[p]ursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12[.]” Id. Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend. ECF 13, “Opposition to Amend.” Plaintiff has filed a reply (ECF 15, “Reply-Motion to Amend”), to which she appended exhibits. See ECF 15-1.

The motions have been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve them. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I will grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 10) as to the State of Maryland; deny the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 10) as to Sheriff Gahler with respect to the claims for prospective injunctive relief in Counts I and III, but otherwise grant the Motion as to Sheriff Gahler, with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint only as to the ADEA hostile work environment claim (Count II), limited to prospective injunctive relief. And, I will also deny the Motion to Amend (ECF 12).

I. Factual Summary

Plaintiff was born in 1970. ECF 5, ¶ 7. She began working as a Police Dispatcher in the Harford County Sheriff's Office in the fall of 1995. ECF 5, ¶¶ 1, 8, 9.² In 1998, she became a “Crime Analyst” (id. ¶ 10), and in 2006 she became Crime Analyst Manager. Id. ¶ 11. According to plaintiff, she “completed her job duties in a very professional and satisfactory manner for 15 years.” ECF 5, ¶ 12. Indeed, plaintiff asserts that Major Dale Stonesifer, her supervisor at the time, informed her that he would “no longer do performance evaluations on her” (ECF 5, ¶ 13), noting: “'It was a waste of time because [she] was doing a great job'.” Id. ¶ 14.

However, plaintiff contends that, beginning in 2013, “Defendant changed its attitude towards her.” ECF 5, ¶ 15. For the first time in her career, plaintiff received “negative feedback” under Captain Carl Brooks, her new supervisor. ECF 5, ¶ 17. Captain Brooks informed plaintiff that the “employees Plaintiff supervised had issues with Plaintiff and that the employees were afraid to come forward.” ECF 5, ¶ 21. However, plaintiff avers that her evaluations suggested she was “an excellent supervisor.” Id. ¶ 22.

Plaintiff alleges that Colonel Carlevaro³ made “numerous derogatory comments” about her in the workplace, and asserts that she was called “a 'fat ass' by management.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 24, 25. According to plaintiff, “Defendant took no action supporting Plaintiff” and “took no action against the offenders.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 26, 27.

In March 2013, plaintiff complained to Major Stonesifer about a hostile work environment. ECF 5, ¶ 28. He encouraged plaintiff to “work together as a united front and work things out.” ECF 5, ¶ 30. Plaintiff told Major Stonesifer that “for years [she had] attempted to make suggestions and recommendations” (ECF 5, ¶ 31), such as social media training and software updates. Id. ¶¶ 32, 33. Major Stonesifer replied: “'Captain Brooks will be able to help you do that and get it done'.” ECF 5, ¶ 35. According to plaintiff, her requests fell “on deaf ears.” ECF 5, ¶ 38.

Also in March 2013, plaintiff met with former Sheriff Jesse Bane (ECF 5, ¶ 59), who told plaintiff that she (plaintiff) “could not work with Captain Brooks with this behavior” and “agreed” that “Colonel Carlevaro's comments were inappropriate.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 60–61. However, according to plaintiff, “nothing changed” after she met with Sheriff Bane. ECF 5, ¶ 64. Later, in April 2013, plaintiff “complained about a hostile work environment to Major Christopher Swain (ECF 5, ¶ 62), who informed plaintiff that she 'would be under the command of Captain Brooks'.” Id. ¶ 63.

In 2013, Kate Mack, who “was in her mid-20s” (ECF 5, ¶ 41), was hired by the Sheriff's Office to work as a Planning Analyst. ECF 5, ¶¶ 41–42. Plaintiff was a member of the panel that interviewed Mack for a position that eventually went to a different candidate. ECF 5, ¶¶ 43, 44, 52, 53. However, plaintiff alleges that Mack was hired by Captain Dan Galbraith for another position that “was never posted” and “others on the interview panel were not consulted.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 54–56. According to plaintiff, the “position was created for Ms. Mack.” ECF 5, ¶ 57.

In July 2013, plaintiff complained to Major Swain about alleged harassment that her co-worker was experiencing. ECF 5, ¶ 65. Plaintiff then held a meeting with Major Swain and Captain Brooks to “discuss the discontent the unit had with Captain Brooks.” ECF 5, ¶ 71. According to plaintiff, Captain Brooks “stood up at the table and pointed at everyone” (id. ¶ 74), and called everyone in attendance a “liar.” Id. ¶ 75. Plaintiff avers that she asked Colonel Carlevaro to join the meeting. ECF 5, ¶ 76. He allegedly threatened plaintiff and her unit, stating that “if Plaintiff wanted to file a complaint with Internal Affairs, Plaintiff should be aware that he, Colonel Carlevaro was in charge of Internal Affairs.” Id. ¶ 79. Before Carlevaro left the meeting, he stated that “there would be changes.” ECF 5, ¶ 83. Plaintiff contends she was “met with hostility,” was barred from speaking with the Sheriff, and was told that future complaints would need to be directed to Major Swain or Colonel Carlevaro. ECF 5, ¶¶ 84–86.

During the summer of 2014, Major Swain held a meeting with Captain Brooks, Mack, plaintiff, and plaintiff's unit. ECF 5, ¶¶ 90–92. Plaintiff alleges that Major Swain “belittled the staff” during the meeting, and “only sought opinions from Ms. Mack.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 93–94. When plaintiff asked why she was not provided with the training she requested (see ECF 5, ¶¶ 39, 40) and that Mack was given, Captain Brooks “physically, threatened Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 98. He “got irate and lunged across the table pointing in Plaintiff's face” (id. ¶ 99), and “screamed, 'you're pissing me off'.” ECF 5, ¶ 100.

When plaintiff “backed away from the table,” she was “ordered to sit down by Captain Brooks” or risk suspension. ECF 5, ¶¶ 101–102. Captain Brooks “escorted” Mack out of the meeting. Id. ¶ 103. Plaintiff avers that she “tried to understand why she was being excluded from all meetings and initiatives regarding the unit” and that after she “voiced concerns” to Captain Brooks he remarked, “'aww are you jealous? This sounds like jealousy to me'.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 104–106.

Colonel Carlevaro retired in 2014 and was replaced by Colonel Ed Hopkins. ECF 5, ¶¶ 107–108. Plaintiff shared her concerns with Colonel Hopkins, who stated: “'I hate to say it but this really sounds like a hostile work environment'.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 109–110. Colonel Hopkins arranged meetings between plaintiff and the Sheriff, and informed plaintiff that the Sheriff wanted to “speak with his command staff before making any decisions.” ECF 5, ¶¶ 111–112. Plaintiff then learned the Sheriff had decided to “disburse the unit.” ECF 5, ¶ 114. Later, plaintiff learned that the Sheriff had not met with his entire command staff, and instead only conferred with command staff with whom plaintiff was having problems. ECF 5, ¶¶ 119–120.

Plaintiff was given a new job description (id. ¶ 115), in which she was to report to Mack. Id. ¶ 116. The job description required “5 years analysis experience.” ECF 5, ¶ 117. According to plaintiff, Mack, who was hired in 2013, “had no experience to run the unit.” ECF 5, ¶ 118. Plaintiff also asserts that Mack did not have the experience required for the promotion she received (id. ¶ 132), and that Mack received “higher pay” (id. ¶ 133), and a “higher pay grade.” Id. ¶ 134. Plaintiff also avers that “Defendant never even announced the position opening” and, “[h]ad Plaintiff know [sic] about the position, Plaintiff would have applied.” Id. ¶¶ 139–140.

In October 2014, in response to plaintiff's complaints about a hostile work environment, she was transferred to a position at a detention center. ECF 5, ¶ 121. Plaintiff asserts: “The detention center is a graveyard for soon to be separated employees” (ECF 5, ¶ 122), and her “duty completely changed[.]” ECF 5, ¶ 123. “Plaintiff was no longer in the law enforcement side of the office” and was instead “on the corrections side....” ECF 5, ¶¶ 123–124. Rather than conducting “crime analysis work” plaintiff now “gather[ed] information from the detention center.” ECF 5, ¶ 125. Additionally, Mack, who...