Young v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action ADC-21-00996
• Parties: NADINE L. YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

NADINE L. YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. ADC-21-00996

United States District Court, D. Maryland

September 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A. David Copperthite United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant Housing Authority of Baltimore City (“Defendant” or “HABC”) moves this Court to grant summary judgment on the claims remaining in Plaintiff Nadine L. Young's Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 50. After considering Defendant's Motion and the responses thereto (ECF ‘ Nos. 50, 55, 58), the Court finds that no hearing is necessary.^[1] Loc.R. 105.6 (D.Md. 2021). Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff was hired by HABC as a full-time Maintenance Worker in 2003. ECF No. 50-4 at 38. She was subsequently promoted to Maintenance Worker II and, in May 2018, was promoted to her current position, Maintenance Technician. Id.-, ECF No. 50-5 at 15^[2]. As a Maintenance Technician, Plaintiff is responsible for “turning over vacant units” by painting, replacing floor

1

tiles, repairing and replacing light fixtures, stripping floors, and replacing bathroom fixtures before new tenants move in. ECF No. 50-4 at 38-39.

While assigned to the Duncanwood Landscape Crew in January 2008, Plaintiff reported to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (“FH&EO”) that her co-worker “treated her as if she was his girlfriend” and that her supervisor “offered her money and trips for sexual favors.” ECF No. 50-4 at 6. FH&EO investigated these allegations and concluded that there was no probable cause to believe that Plaintiffs co-worker or supervisor sexually harassed her. Id. at 9, 10, 13, 15. It did conclude, however, that HABC supervisory staff members and Plaintiff “willingly created and contributed to a hostile work environmentf.]” Id. at 15. The investigation revealed that Plaintiff “consistently made vulgar comments of a sexual nature,” “engaged in sexually provocative dancing in the presence of other employees,” and “displayed nude pictures of herself and of men and women on her cellphone[.]” Id. at 17. Plaintiffs supervisors, the FH&EO report explains, knew or should have known about these inappropriate acts and “did nothing to stop” them. Id. at 15, 17. The FH&EO recommended, among other things, that Plaintiffs supervisors be reprimanded “for their inaction and contribution to the hostile work environment” and that Plaintiff be “counseled about her inappropriate behavior in the workplace.” Id. at 18.

In August 2011, Plaintiff complained to the McCulloh Homes Housing Manager that a Maintenance Technician, Mr. George Reaves, had made sexually inappropriate and disparaging comments to her. Id. at 21; ECF No. 50-6 at 9.^[3] Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Reaves had made a crude comment about her nipples in the shop area. Id. Plaintiff also explained that Mr. Reaves “disrespected her” several months later at an employee appreciation cookout when he “told

2

her to leave the food alone, not liftup the foil covering the food and to set up for the cookout.” Id. at 22. After conducting another thorough investigation, the FH&EO concluded that Mr. Reaves' references to Plaintiffs nipples was inappropriate. Id. at 30. It also concluded that Plaintiff and Mr. Reaves “frequently had discussions regarding sexual matters” and that Plaintiff “consistently initiated and engaged in extremely inappropriate explicit sexual discussions.” Id. The FH&EO recommended that disciplinary action be taken against both Plaintiff and Mr. Reaves Id. at 32. On January 9,2012, Mr. Reaves received a letter of counseling explaining that he “made inappropriate and objectionable statements in the workplace.” ECF No. 55-3 at 2. He was subsequently transferred to another location. ECF No. 50-6 at 19. For her role, Plaintiff was suspended for five days without pay. ECF No. 55-4. Plaintiffs union representative challenged this punishment as “extremely discriminating” as Plaintiff had made the complaint of harassment which triggered the investigation. ECF No. 58-1 at 6.^[4] HABC and Plaintiff ultimately reached a settlement, under which Plaintiff s punishment was reduced to the forfeiture of two days of universal leave. ECF No. 55-6.

In August 2018, Plaintiff and three other HABC employees were transferred from Perkins Homes to Latrobe Homes. ECF No 1, ¶12; ECF No. 50-5 at 20, 45. On her first day working at Latrobe, Plaintiff spotted Mr. Reaves and deduced that he was assigned to the same development.

3

ECF No. 50-4 at 52. Later the same day, Plaintiff pulled aside her new superintendent, Mr. Carthell Maple, and expressed that she did not feel comfortable working with Mr. Reaves given their previous interactions. Id. at 57. She informed Mr. Maple that she “felt very uncomfortable getting out of [her] car, coming into the building, and seeing Mr. Reaves.” Id. at 58. While acknowledging that he was unaware of any prior conflicts between Plaintiff and Mr. Reaves, Mr. Maple assured Plaintiff that, because they were assigned to different teams, she would not work directly with Mr. Reaves.^[5] Id. at 57-58. In the following months, Plaintiff did see Mr. Reaves at work, and even worked on one project with him, but did not experience or report any inappropriate interactions. Id. at 59, 66-67.

Mr. Maple resigned as the superintendent of Latrobe Homes in June 2019 and was replaced on an interim basis by Mr. Harrold Harvey. Id. at 71. During Mr. Harvey's approximately twomonth tenure as acting superintendent, Plaintiff did not have any inappropriate or uncomfortable interactions with Mr. Reaves, nor did she express to Mr. Harvey any past or present concerns about Mr. Reaves' workplace conduct. Id. at 71-72. Mr. Harvey was succeeded by Mr. Harold Brooks who, upon assuming the superintendent position, reassigned staff members to ensure that each vacant unit crew had three members. Id. at 73. As part of this reconfiguration, Mr. Reaves was assigned to work on the same vacant unit crew as Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff did not, either immediately before or immediately after this announcement, inform Mr. Brooks that she had concerns about working with Mr. Reaves.^[6] Id. at 74.

4

Plaintiff and Mr. Reaves initially worked cooperatively together, with Plaintiff generally opting to work alone within the crew's assigned units. Id. Less than two months after being assigned to the same crew, however, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Reaves resumed harassing her. Id. at 84. Specifically, Plaintiff recalls an occasion when Mr. Reaves came up to a bathroom where she was hanging a medicine cabinet and began staring at her. Id. Several seconds later, Mr. Reaves .

“bumped [Plaintiffs] back area” in an attempt to “help [her] adjust the medicine cabinet.” Id. at 84-85, 93. Plaintiff expressed that she was able to hang the medicine cabinet herself and that she wanted Mr. Reaves to “get out,” which he did. Id. at 84-85. Although this incident made Plaintiff “so uncomfortable,” she did not immediately report it to any of her supervisors at HABC or to anyone in her union. Id. In the very next unit that the crew was assigned, Mr. Reaves was again watching Plaintiff as she was kneeling on the floor installing trim.^[7] Id. at 86-87, 90-92. This attention not only made Plaintiff uncomfortable but was, according to Plaintiff, counterproductive, as Mr. Reaves could have been accomplishing other tasks within the unit. Id. at 86-87. While work was still ongoing in this unit, Plaintiff told Mr. Harvey, who was no longer the superintendent, that Mr. Reaves was “around [her] like that[.]” Id. at 94. Mr. Harvey informed her that he would “keep an eye on Mr. Reaves.” Id. at 94-96.

Plaintiff was again harassed by Mr. Reaves on September 10, 2019, while the crew was stripping, buffing, and waxing the floors in a multilevel unit at 901 Valley Street. Id. at 96-97. After Mr. Reaves and another crew member buffed the floors, Plaintiff applied the first coat of wax and waited on the fourth or fifth step of the unit while it was drying. Id. at 97-98. While she was sitting on the step, Mr. Reaves opened the screen door and, against Plaintiffs wishes, entered

5

the unit. Id. at 98-99. Mr. Reaves stepped on the drying wax, approached Plaintiff, and “grabbed [her] legs and spread [her] legs open and tr[ied] to get between [her] legs.” Id. at 99. Plaintiff immediately pushed him off and exited the unit. Id. In Plaintiff's view, Mr. Reaves opened her legs “to be sexual.” Id. at 104. After leaving the unit, Plaintiff sat in her car for the rest of her shift to get “herself together.” Id. at 105. As Mr. Reaves exited the work site, he “brush[ed] up past” Plaintiffs car and blew her a kiss. Id. at 106.

The next day, Plaintiff advised Mr. Harvey that she would no longer work with Mr. Reaves. Id. at 106-07. Mr. Harvey subsequently called a meeting where he informed Plaintiff and Mr. Reaves that they would no longer be working together. Id. at 108. Mr. Reaves became animated during this meeting and allegedly expressed that Plaintiff “shouldn't open her f****** mouth.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 25; ECF No. 50-4 at 108. While the parties were moved to separate crews, neither was transferred to a different location. Id. at 108. Moving Mr. Reaves to a different crew did not, . in Plaintiffs view, solve the problem because she still encountered Mr. Reaves at job functions, when she punched in and out, and in the lunchroom. Id. at 110-11. Plaintiff expressed these concerns to Mr. Harvey, who advised her to talk to Mr. Brooks. Id. at 114,118-19.

While Plaintiff did not immediately inform Mr. Brooks of Mr. Reaves' conduct, she did, in October 2019, pull him aside at the beginning of a mandatory sexual harassment training hosted by HABC. Id. at 121-22. She explained that Mr. Reaves had harassed her and that, in her view, Mr....