Taylor v. Go-Getters, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action ELH-20-3624 |
| Parties | IVAN M. TAYLOR. Plaintiff, v. GO-GETTERS, INC. et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
In this employment discrimination action, the self-represented plaintiff, Ivan M. Taylor, has filed an eleven-count complaint against his former employer, Go-Getters, Inc. (“Go-Getters”) and two of his former colleagues Dimitrios Cavathas and Delores Watson. ECF 1 (the “Complaint”). Taylor claims he was subjected to a hostile work environment on account of his sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C §§ 2000e et seq (“Title VII”). Plaintiff also alleges violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Id. at 9-10, 12-13. Further, he asserts claims for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. Id. at 10-12. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reinstatement. Id. at 7.
Watson Cavathas, and Go-Getters have jointly moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF 6) supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 6-1) (collectively, the “Motion”).[1] They urge dismissal of the Complaint, claiming that several of the causes of action that plaintiff invokes are inapplicable and that Taylor's remaining allegations fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted. See Id. at 5-15.
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, asserting that dismissal is premature and the Court should grant him the opportunity for a jury to determine defendants' liability. ECF 11 (the “Opposition”). Defendants have replied. ECF 12 (the “Reply”). They argue that, taking as true the facts as alleged in the Complaint, plaintiff's assertions cannot survive a motion to dismiss. Id.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion, but with leave to amend plaintiff's Title VII claim as to defendant Go-Getters (Count 1), as well as his breach of contract claim (Count 4).
Taylor, a Black male (ECF 1 at 14), was an employee of Go-Getters during the relevant period. Id. at 14-16.[2] Watson was his supervisor. Id. at 14. And, Cavathas was a “final policy maker for Defendant Go-Getters.” Id. at 9. The suit is rooted in the untimely death of plaintiff's fiancé, Charleita Stanley, who died on May 13, 2018, from breast cancer, at the age of 48. Id. at 14. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment between May 2018 and November 2018, which culminated in his termination from Go-Getters on November 12, 2018. Id. at 14-17.
In the days following Stanley's death, Taylor allegedly asked Watson if he could take some time off from his job “to collect [his] thoughts and try to get [himself] together.” Id. at 14. Watson discouraged him from doing so. Id. However, Taylor obtained permission from another Go-Getter employee, Pam Karpin, to take “some time to make burial arrangements.” Id.
On May 23, 2018, Taylor had another conversation with Watson, in which Watson stated that other supervisors at Go-Getters, including Cavathas, had an unspecified “issue” with Taylor. Id. Moreover, she told Taylor that one of these officials told Watson that Taylor was lucky to have her as his supervisor, because without Watson's support, “he would be gone.” Id. And, Watson warned plaintiff that he was being watched. Id.
According to Taylor, Watson “totally changed after the death of [his] fiancée.” Id. In particular, he avers that Watson began calling him outside of work hours and while plaintiff was on vacation. Id. During these phone calls, Watson “constantly” reminded Taylor that he had “a target on [his] back” and asserted that “Black Males historically do not do well at Go-Getters.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Watson continued this behavior, even after Taylor asked her to stop. Id. And, Watson allegedly refused to assist Taylor with various job-related issues, often responding to Taylor's requests for help with “sarcastic comments.” Id.
Taylor asserts that Watson felt “threatened” by the strong relationships that Taylor enjoyed with his coworkers. Id. As a result, Watson “always complained about staff not doing or being behind in their work.” Id. And, in Taylor's telling, Watson often distracted the staff and “was always in staff's office.” Id. Moreover, when one of Taylor's coworkers asked Watson to “stop distracting the team, ” Watson responded by further harassing Taylor, telling Taylor he was “behind in [his] paper work and services, ” and falsely stating that Taylor had “to go see a new referral” with her. Id.
In addition, plaintiff reports that Watson had forced him to perform three errands for her, all of which were unrelated to his job duties. Id. at 15. Specifically, he alleges that in July 2018, he was “forced to drive [Watson] to her house and repair her lawn mower.” Id. And, in September 2018, Taylor was twice forced to drive Watson to purchase furniture and transport it back to her house. Id.
According to the Complaint, plaintiff's issues with Watson came to a head in early November 2018. On Thursday, November 8, 2018, Watson returned to work after taking a few days off. Id. Taylor approached Watson and pointed out that he had not tried to call her while she was away. Id. Plaintiff then asked Watson to “stop calling and harassing [him] when [he] was off.” Id. Watson responded with “deception and threats of termination, ” and warned plaintiff that he “had to do what she said or face termination.” Id. Moreover, she reminded Taylor that another Go-Getters official did not like plaintiff and would be happy if Watson fired him. Id.
Plaintiff did not work the next day, in order to tend to his mother, who was experiencing health issues. Id. And, on Saturday, November 10, 2018, Watson called Taylor. Id. She asked about his mother's condition, but the conversation quickly turned to plaintiff's alleged failures to perform his work duties. Id. In response, Taylor once more asked Watson to stop “harassing [him] on [his] days off” and threatened that, if she persisted in doing so, he would resign. Id.
After plaintiff spoke with Watson, he discussed his difficulties at work with his mother. Id. Taylor then sent Watson a text message, which states: “Mom said call back and say you will think about it before you resign.” Id. Plaintiff indicates that he then spoke with Watson and “informed her [he] would talk to her more on Monday about [his] possible resignation.” Id. But, Taylor insists: “I did NOT resign on my day off.” Id.
The following Monday, November 12, 2018, plaintiff did not go to work, as he was still caring for his mother. Id. Nevertheless, he “received numerous calls” from a Go-Getters employee, Janie Twilley, who asked Taylor to “reset [his] password and check an email from Pam Karpin . . . .” Id. This email, according to plaintiff, reflected that plaintiff had tendered a verbal resignation to Watson over the phone, which she had accepted. Id. Taylor called Karpin and explained that he had only “talked about resigning.” Id. Karpin initially agreed to a meeting with plaintiff to address the matter. Id. But, after plaintiff asked to reschedule the meeting, Karpin sent Taylor an email stating that she had read plaintiff's text messages to Watson and believed that Taylor had effectively resigned his position with Go-Getters. Id. at 15-16.
Taylor indicates that he then reached out to Cavathas “in [an] attempt to speak with him.” Id. at 16. However, Cavathas was “very rude, ” “accused [plaintiff] of having poor judgment, ” and told plaintiff “not to contact him.” Id.
The Complaint reflects that plaintiff “was also informed that [he] would not receive payment for [his] sick leave [or] vacation time . . . .” Id. In addition, Taylor alleges that the “life insurance that [he] paid into for 18 years was cancelled immediately” and his “health insurance was cancelled [on] November 30, 2018.” Id. Accordingly, he avers that he intends to “file a wage claim complaint with State of Maryland Department of Labor Licensing and Regulations.” Id.
Plaintiff also claims that he applied for State unemployment benefits following his termination. Id. Thereafter, he received a “Notice of Benefit Determination Letter, ” which indicated that he “was discharged” from Go-Getters “[d]ue to discussing the possibility of quitting with his supervisor.” Id. Moreover, it reported that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Taylor's actions “constituted misconduct in connection with the work.” The letter also reflected that Taylor was approved to collect unemployment benefits, if he was otherwise eligible to receive them. Id.
And, the Complaint includes summaries of how Watson treated two female staff members after they threatened to resign from Go-Getters.
First, Taylor alleges that Watson refused altogether to accept the resignation of one of Taylor's coworkers, Helen Bowman, a white woman who works as a program coordinator at Go-Getters. Id. at 16-17. According to plaintiff, Bowman's husband died in September 2012, and Bowman is “still grieving the loss of her . . . husband.” Id. She also becomes “more emotional” at various times throughout the year. Id. On one such occasion, Bowman told Watson that she wanted to quit from her position. Id. Watson responded by comforting Bowman, asking her to reconsider, and giving her the rest of the day off, with pay. Id. In addition, Watson told Taylor and a colleague of Taylor to be “extremely nice” to Bowman because she “does a wonderful job in the day program” and “[w]e don't want her to quit.” Id.
Second Taylor indicates that Watson...
To continue reading
Request your trial