Smith v. Maryland
| Decision Date | 20 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB-11-2007 |
| Parties | THEODORE R. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Theodore R. Smith ("Plaintiff" or "Smith") initially brought this employment discrimination action against Governor Martin O'Malley of the State of Maryland ("Governor O'Malley") in his official capacity alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("the ADA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint against additional defendants, namely the State of Maryland, the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services ("DJS"),1 Arlene Rogin ("Rogin"), Nevada Brewer ("Brewer"), Larry McClain ("McClain") and Pamela Hardy-Cyran ("Hardy-Cyran") as Defendants. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff reiterates his employment discrimination claims under the ADA and the ADEA and adds claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He also alleges Maryland common law claims such as constructive discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamationand invasion of privacy (false light) as well as vicarious liability. Following the Defendants' filing of a Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in which he replaced the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 with claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq., and alleged new claims of disparate treatment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.2 Plaintiff also added claims for discrimination, disparate treatment and retaliation under Maryland Code, State and Government Article, §§ 20-601 et seq.
Pending before this Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also pending are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30), as amended by Interlineation (ECF No.36), and Plaintiff's Motion to Waive Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act ("MGTCA"), Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, §§ 5-401 to 5-404's Requirements for Good Cause (ECF No. 38). The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30), as amendedby Interlineation (ECF No. 36), is DENIED.3 Defendants the State of Maryland, the DJS, Governor O'Malley, Rogin, Brewer, McClain and Hardy-Cyran's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. Specifically, Plaintiff's federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion to Waive the MGTCA's Requirements for Good Cause (ECF No. 38) is DENIED as MOOT.
This Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff's' complaint. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff Theodore R. Smith ("Plaintiff" or "Smith") is a sixty-nine, (69) year old African American male who began working for the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services ("DJS") in April of 2005. Pl.'s 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 13, ECF No. 6. According to Plaintiff, until 2008 his "performance was exemplary and consistent with the legitimate expectations of" the DJS. Id. ¶ 13. As of 2008, however, Defendant Nevada Brewer ("Brewer"), a teacher supervisor at the Schaefer House,4 and her colleague Arlene Rogin ("Rogin") allegedly targeted Smith and engaged in actions to violate his federal and state rights. Id. ¶ 14. First, Smith alleges that Brewer demoted him from the position of Special Education Coordinator at the Schaefer House to that of teacher and in turn assumed the Special Education Coordinator position herself. Id. ¶ 15. At that time,Smith was assigned to a classroom which he and his students were to share with another teacher, Ms. Boston, and her students. Id ¶ 16. Although Brewer instructed him not to help Ms. Boston, Smith and Ms. Boston "began to work successfully together," which in turn caused Brewer to terminate Ms. Boston's employment. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Second, Smith claims that although he was assigned Ms. Boston's responsibilities and performed successfully, Brewer repeatedly criticized his work, harassed and reprimanded him. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. On one occasion, she allegedly reported him to the Director of the Schaefer House for missing an hour of work even though she knew that he was working on the premises. Id. ¶ 20. Third, Smith alleges that in 2009, Brewer accused him of slashing her tires. Id. ¶ 21. He was prosecuted for this offense but found not guilty. Id.
From October through December 2009,5 Smith "underwent radiation for laryngeal cancer." Id. at 22. On March 27, 2010, his oncologist explained that he would be able to return to work on May 3, 2010 but that his treatment would be ongoing and that frequent visits to his physicians would be necessary. Id. ¶ 23. On June 18, 2010, Pamela Hardy-Cyran ("Hardy-Cyran"), the DJS' Education Coordinator, informed Smith that he would be transferred to a facility in Rockville, Maryland. Id. ¶ 24. Smith alleges that on the same day, he filed an age and disability discrimination charge against the DJS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").6 Id. ¶ 11. He then later declined to accept the transfer, due to the increased commute and his required visits to his physicians, and submitted a request that the DJS accommodate his medical needs by assigning him to aposition in the Baltimore area. Id. ¶ 25. This accommodation request was denied on June 28, 2010. Id. ¶ 26. Smith then sought the opinion of Dr. Mile P. Lyons, of the State Medical Director's Office, who concluded in a letter to the DJS that Smith's medical condition made it necessary for him to work in the Baltimore area. Id. ¶ 27. Nevertheless, the DJS responded that Smith could either transfer to a Rockville facility or be terminated as no other positions were available in the Baltimore area.7 Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Therefore, Smith alleges that his employment "was constructively terminated" on August 12, 2011 as he was "forced to resign" due to his inability to commute to Rockville, Maryland.8 Id. ¶ 31. Smith further alleges that contrary to the DJS' claim that no other positions were available in the Baltimore area, it hired at least two new teachers who were younger than him after denying his request for an accommodation. Id. ¶ 30. Additionally, Smith asserts that he was qualified to perform the teaching position and that the DJS failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. Id. ¶ 33.
After rejecting his claim, the EEOC issued him a Notice of Right to Sue on April 21, 2011.9 Id. ¶ 11. He then filed the initial complaint in this action against Maryland's Governor, Martin O'Malley ("Governor O'Malley") in his official capacity on July 21,2011.10 Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 1. On November 7, 2011, Smith amended his Complaint to include additional Defendants namely the State of Maryland, the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services ("DJS"), Nevada Brewer ("Brewer"), Arlene Rogin ("Rogin"), Larry McClain ("McClain") and Pamela Hardy-Cyran ("Hardy-Cyran"). Pl.'s 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-8. The First Amended Complaint alleges ten counts against these Defendants: disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., (Count I); age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (Count II); conspiracy to discriminate in violation 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Count III); deprivation of rights under the color of state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV); and the common law claims of constructive discharge (Count V); intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted against Defendants Brewer, Rogin and McClain (Count VI & VII); defamation of character and invasion of privacy false light asserted against Brewer (Count VIII); malicious prosecution (Count IX) and respondeat superior against the State of Maryland and DJS (Count X).
Following the Defendants' filing of a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30-2) along with the changes made pursuant to the Amendment by Interlineation (ECF No. 36) alleges a total of fifteen counts against the Defendants. While the majority of the counts alleged in the First Amended Complaint are realleged in the Second Amended Complaint, the 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims are replaced with allegations of disabilitydiscrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq. Smith additionally alleges claims of disparate treatment and retaliation in violation of the ADA11 and claims of discrimination, disparate treatment and retaliation under Maryland Code, State and Government Article, §§ 20-601 et seq. Finally, he specifies that the malicious prosecution claim (Count IX) is specifically asserted against Defendant Brewer and relates to his allegation that Brewer caused him to be prosecuted by the state for slashing her tires; a crime he was found not to have committed.
A plaintiff may amend his or her complaint once "as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served" or "by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) requires that leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires." In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial