Abram v. Aerotek, Inc.

HARWICK CHYA ABRAM, Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. ELH-20-756

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

September 23, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Harwick Abram, the self-represented plaintiff, filed an employment discrimination action against defendant Aerotek, Inc. ("Aerotek"). See ECF 3 (the "Complaint").¹ Ms. Abram, a Black woman, initially applied for employment with Aerotek on April 9, 2015. Id. ¶ 13. According to Ms. Abram, "[d]uring all times relevant [to] this action Defendant Aerotek . . . continuously engaged in staffing or employment agency industry." Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff

The Complaint contains three counts, all founded on 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race (Count 1) and national origin (Count 2) and was also subjected to retaliation (Count 3). See ECF 3 at 1, 8-10. Two exhibits are appended to the Complaint. ECF 3 at 13-17.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint (ECF 10), supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 10-1 (collectively, the "Motion"). Aerotek contends that 42 U.S.C. § 1658 supplies the applicable statute of limitations, and that the four-yearlimitations period expired before plaintiff filed suit. ECF 10-1. Plaintiff's opposition is docketed at ECF 13. Defendant has replied. ECF 17.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.

I. Background²

Plaintiff refers to herself as Black. ECF 3, ¶ 5. Further, plaintiff alleges that her "resume exhibits [that she] graduated from a historically black university Bethune-Cookman College/University." Id. ¶ 11. She asserts that this "denote[s] association with the race black or African Americans or black culture and African American traditions." Id. ¶ 59. As to additional details of plaintiff's educational attainment, the Complaint states, id. ¶ 10:

Plaintiff['s] resume indicate[s] higher education Bachelor of Science degree Business Administration specialization 1993, Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree with Specialization in Finance 2002, doctoral-level pursuit Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) as well as Human Resources Management Certificate (HRM).

Moreover, Ms. Abram alleges that her "resume exhibits finance sector and retail management sector work place experience." Id. ¶ 13.

The Complaint does not provide a clear chronology of Ms. Abram's interactions or associations with Aerotek. Although the Complaint is confusing, it does not appear that plaintiff ever worked for Aerotek. Rather, on March 13, 2015, plaintiff applied to Aerotek for a position titled "Direct Placement Credit Analyst." Id. ¶ 22. Thereafter, on March 26, 2015, plaintiff allegedly applied for two other positions with the same title. Id. The Complaint provides a"position" and "job id." number for each of the three positions and refers to them as "Defendant positions in question[.]" Id.

Then, on April 9, 2015, Ms. Abram "completed and signed Defendant new hire application contract package." Id. ¶ 13. On the same date, Ms. Abram "arrived regarding in person Interview" with Margaret Broderick, a "white female interviewer." Id. ¶¶ 17, 19. Plaintiff alleges that "Marlon Barton, black male, interfered with in person Interview with Margaret Broderick." Id. ¶ 19.³ Mr. Broderick allegedly "stereotyped Plaintiff race black gender female abilities to complete" the "job tasks" of the three "Direct Placement Credit Analyst" positions for which plaintiff applied. Id. ¶ 20. And, Barton stereotyped "Plaintiff [sic] abilities to complete credit analyst job tasks . . . ." Id. ¶ 21.

On October 3, 2015, plaintiff applied for two more "Defendant positions in question": "Financial Analyst II" and "Analyst II." Id. ¶ 23. The Complaint includes the "position" numbers for both. Id.

According to plaintiff, Ms. Broderick and Mr. Barton decided not to select her for the three Credit Analyst positions, id. ¶ 33, and "Defendant employee Matthew McGuire, white male," allegedly decided not to select her for the positions of "Financial Analyst II" and "Analyst II." Id. ¶¶ 31-32. Indeed, according to plaintiff, defendant did not offer her any of the positions for which she applied. See id. ¶¶ 24, 25, 27-29. The Complaint states: "Defendant denied Plaintiff finance and other positions job employment opportunities [sic] from 3.25.15 until 1.13.16." Id. ¶ 50.

In particular, plaintiff asserts: "Defendant never considered Plaintiff for Defendant positions in question" id. ¶ 24; "Defendant hired whites" for four of the positions for which plaintiff applied, see id. ¶¶ 27, 38-39; "Defendant utilized discriminatory method manner of screening and recruiting" for four of the positions, id. ¶ 28; "Defendant selected other individuals less qualified than Plaintiff" for four of the positions, id. ¶ 29; and "Defendant asserted" that plaintiff "lack[s] skills necessary" for the Credit Analyst positions. Id. ¶ 40.

Plaintiff filed "internal complaint opposing discrimination regarding white employees discriminatory hiring practices from 4.10.15 up until January 2016." Id. ¶ 73. Reading the Complaint as a whole, it appears that plaintiff filed multiple complaints. See id. ¶¶ 34-36, 73-74. The earliest of these complaints was filed on April 10, 2015. See id. ¶ 74. Plaintiff claims that she continued applying for positions after that date, "up until January 2016." Id.

Various Aerotek employees allegedly "investigated" the complaints. See id. ¶¶ 34, 36, 77; see also ¶¶ 35, 76, 78. Ms. Abram identifies these employees by name: Dan Farkus, the "Director of Operations," id. ¶¶ 34, 77, and Betty Kernizan, Leshandra Davis,⁴ and Tania Tithings, to whom the Complaint refers alternately as employees of "Defendant HR Employee Relations," "Defendant HR," and "Corporate Office Employee Relations HR." See ¶¶ 35-37, 76-77.

Moreover, Ms. Abram alleges: "Defendant retaliated channeled denied employment failure to staff Plaintiff . . . ." Id. ¶ 75. And, she asserts: "Defendant adverse action retaliation for Plaintiff opposing discrimination." Id. ¶ 79. Plaintiff adds that defendant failed "to staff Plaintiff from 4.10.15 up until January 2016." Id. The Complaint contains no additional allegations regarding the alleged retaliation.

On July 14, 2016, Ms. Abram filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id. at 16.⁵ She listed "Aerotek Staffing" in the field for "Employer, Labor Organization, [or] Employment Agency . . . ." Id. And, as to the basis of the claim of discrimination, she checked the boxes for "Race," "National Origin," "Age," "Sex," and "Retaliation." Id. Plaintiff identified the earliest date of discrimination as March 25, 2015, and the latest as January 13, 2016. Id. In the narrative portion of the Charge, Ms. Abram averred, in full, id.:

I. On numerous occasions, dating back to March 25, 2015 and most recently on January 13, 2016, the above referenced employment agency has failed to consider me or assign me to positions I am qualified to fill. I am aware that Senior Account Recruiting Manager Matthew McGuire has failed to submit my resume for positions and has stated I lacked the qualifications for jobs despite the fact my resume clearly reflects my qualifications, education and work experience. I believe these actions are the result of information derived from my resume. In addition I and others have previously leveled complaints against the agency regarding its questionable policies and procedures.

II. I have been given no explanation for the agency's actions.

III. I believe I have been discriminated and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, because of my race (Black), sex (female), and national origin (American), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) because of my age (over 40) regarding hiring.

On May 12, 2017, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue to plaintiff. Id. at 14. It stated that the EEOC was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of statutes." Id.

This suit followed on January 13, 2020. ECF 1; ECF 3.

II. Standard of Review

A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Weil, 918 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2019); In re Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). That rule provides that a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) ("Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ." (citation omitted)); see also Paradise Wire & Cable, 918 F.3d at 317; Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 112 (4th Cir. 2017). Of course, a plaintiff need not include "detailed factualallegations" in order to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555....