Aly v. Yellen

1

LAYLA B. ALY, Plaintiff v. JANET L. YELLEN, et al., Defendants

CIVIL No. 8:23-cv-01699-AAQ

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 9, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AJMEL A. QUERESHI, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a case involving alleged national origin-based employment discrimination. Plaintiff Layla Aly has advanced claims against her former employers, Defendants Janet Yellen and the United States Department of Treasury (“Defendants”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C § 1981. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 21. The Motion has been fully briefed, and a hearing is not necessary under this Court's local rules. See Loc. R 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons discussed below Defendants' Motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are set forth in Plaintiff Layla Aly's Complaint.^[1] ECF No. 1. Ms. Aly, who was born in Egypt and immigrated to the United States in 1982, began working for the United States Department of Treasury as a Systems Accountant in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in 2005. Id. at ¶¶ 5-7. In or around October of 2019, Ms. Aly transferred to a new division within the Bureau of Engraving and Printing - the Financial Systems Division. Id. at ¶ 8. Before her transfer, Ms Aly earned high employee performance ratings and had never required discipline from her employer. Id. at ¶ 9.

Ms. Aly alleges that almost immediately after transferring to the new division, her supervisor, Tom Liebrand, treated Ms. Aly differently than other employees who were not foreign-born. Id. at ¶ 10. Mr. Liebrand allegedly ignored Ms. Aly's requests for help, instructed others not to assist Ms. Aly, and instructed Ms. Aly not to reach out to others for help with her new position, even though he provided help to other new or newly transferred employees. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. Ms. Aly also alleges that Mr. Liebrand frequently yelled at her and erroneously criticized her job performance. Id. at ¶ 14. Ms. Aly further alleges that Mr. Liebrand sent her insulting and belittling emails, including one occasion on which he sent an email to Ms. Aly and all other employees in the division in which he told Ms. Aly that if she answered a question he asked her, he would grant her a reprieve from serving coffee to management. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. Serving coffee to management was not one of Ms. Aly's job duties. Id.

Between November 2019 and April 2020, on several occasions, Ms. Aly contacted Mr. Liebrand's manager, Tim Miller, to complain about Mr. Liebrand's actions. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14, 17, 23-24. In April 2020, Mr. Miller contacted his manager, Claire Chen, and on April 14, 2020, Ms. Aly, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Chen attended a meeting to discuss Mr. Liebrand's management of Ms. Aly. Id. at ¶¶ 24-27.

In June 2020, Mr. Miller left his position, and Ms. Chen became Mr. Liebrand's acting supervisor. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. Ms. Aly alleges that under Ms. Chen's supervision, Mr. Liebrand began treating Ms. Aly even worse, assigning Ms. Aly disproportionately more work than her American-born coworkers and expecting Ms. Aly to fulfill unreasonable deadlines. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32, 41.

Ms. Aly continued to complain to Ms. Chen about Mr. Liebrand's actions and, on June 25, 2020, asked Ms. Chen to transfer her to a different office with a different supervisor. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34. Ms. Chen denied Ms. Aly's request, although Ms. Aly alleges that Ms. Chen approved similar requests from American-born employees. Id. at ¶ 35. On or about June 28, 2020, Ms. Aly asked Ms. Chen to reconsider her decision or to provide help resolving the hostile work atmosphere Ms. Aly was experiencing under Mr. Liebrand's supervision. Id. at ¶ 38. Ms. Chen again refused Ms. Aly's transfer request and allegedly offered no other solutions to address Ms. Aly's grievances. Id. at ¶ 39. In response, on June 29, 2020, Ms. Aly contacted “an equal employment opportunity counselor” to file an internal complaint. Id. at ¶ 40. On June 30, 2020, Ms. Aly and Mike Mizzo, Ms. Aly's foreign-born colleague who had similar complaints about Mr. Liebrand's supervision, met with Ms. Chen to again voice concerns about their working conditions. Id. at ¶¶ 42-43. Ms. Aly alleges that during the meeting, Ms. Chen became visibly upset and told Ms. Aly and Mr. Mizzo that their work performances were deficient. Id. at ¶ 44. Ms. Aly further alleges that after the meeting, Ms. Chen refused Ms. Aly's leave requests, threatened to reduce Ms. Aly's pay grade, threatened to terminate Ms. Aly, and accused Ms. Aly of wrongdoing. Id. at ¶¶ 47-49.

On July 6, 2020, Ms. Aly contacted the Department's Chief Financial Officer to report her concerns about Mr. Liebrand's and Ms. Chen's management. Id. at ¶ 50. On the same day, Ms. Aly filed an equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) complaint against Ms. Chen. Id. On July 7, 2020, Ms. Chen allegedly informed Ms. Aly that she was not permitted to begin working prior to 6:00 AM, although one of Ms. Aly's colleagues worked during these hours. Id. at ¶¶ 52-53. On or about August 11, 2020, Ms. Chen held a meeting with Ms. Aly during which Ms. Chen again threatened to reduce Ms. Aly's pay grade or to terminate her. Id. at ¶ 54. On the same day, Ms. Chen issued Ms. Aly a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”), which required Ms. Aly to complete a number of assignments within a 60-day window in addition to Ms. Aly's regular job duties. Id. at ¶ 55. Shortly after Ms. Chen placed Ms. Aly on the PIP, Mr. Liebrand began giving Ms. Aly assignments late into the evening with deadlines that Ms. Aly describes as “nearly impossible.” Id. at ¶ 57.

Around this time, the Department placed Ms. Aly under the management of Sarah Benabdi, under whose management Ms. Aly alleges that she continued experiencing disparate treatment. Id. at ¶¶ 58, 60. In November 2020, Ms. Benabdi gave Ms. Aly the lowest performance rating that Ms. Aly had received during her employment with the Department of Treasury, 3.0 out of 5.0, even though Ms. Aly alleges that she continued to receive positive feedback from “coworkers and customers.” Id. at ¶ 61. Ms. Aly alleges that Ms. Benabdi stated that others had instructed her to give Ms. Aly the low rating and negative comments. Id. at ¶ 62. In response, on November 4, 2020, Ms. Aly filed another EEO complaint and, shortly thereafter, was placed under the supervision of a new manager, Ty Hensel, under whom Ms. Aly alleges that her disparate treatment continued. Id. at ¶¶ 64-66, 82. In November 2021, Mr. Hensel gave Ms. Aly an annual performance review of 3.4 out of 5.0. Id. at ¶ 67. Also in November 2021, Mark Brody replaced Mr. Hensel as Ms. Aly's supervisor, under whom Ms. Aly alleges her negative treatment continued. Id. at ¶¶ 68, 70. Mr. Brody allegedly excluded Ms. Aly from meetings, called Ms. Aly outside of business hours, and assigned Ms. Aly a disproportionately large amount of work with unreasonable deadlines. Id. at ¶ 71. Mr. Liebrand, Ms. Benabdi, Mr. Hensel, and Mr. Brody all worked under the supervision of Ms. Chen. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 63, 65, 69.

Ms. Aly alleges that on November 16, 2021, she learned that the Department did not select her for an internal position for which she applied, the Systems Accountant position. Id. at ¶ 72. She also alleges that she applied for other positions in her office for which the hiring officials selected her as an interview candidate but canceled her interview each time. Id. at ¶ 74. The Department never selected Ms. Aly for these positions. Id. On November 23, 2021, Ms. Aly filed another EEO complaint. Id. at ¶ 73.

Ms. Aly alleges that her work environment caused her to suffer anxiety, stress, depression, insomnia, panic attacks, and hypertension. Id. at ¶ 78. To cope with these symptoms, Ms. Aly took leave from the end of November 2021 until January 2022. Id. at ¶ 75. She additionally took leave intermittently from January 2022 until June 30, 2022, at which point Ms. Aly alleges that she was forced to retire due to her employment conditions. Id. at ¶¶ 76-77, 79. Ms. Aly alleges that she sought medical care for the above symptoms and suffered damages in the forms of emotional distress and loss of wages and benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 78, 81.

On January 24, 2023, Ms. Aly requested a final agency decision in response to the EEO complaints she filed throughout her employment. Id. at ¶ 82. Ms. Aly received the agency's final decision on March 24, 2023. Id. On June 22, 2023, Ms. Aly filed her Complaint in this Court, asserting against Defendants claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See id. On December 22, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. Aly's claims, or, in the alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 21. On February 9, 2024, Ms. Aly filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion. ECF No. 26. On March 22, 2024, Defendants filed a Reply in support of their Motion. ECF No. 29.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b) provides that a party may move to dismiss where the plaintiff has “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court considers whether a complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court will consider whether the plaintiff has pled factual content allowing reasonable inferences to be drawn that the defendant is “liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The plaintiff need not plead facts that are probable but must present facts showcasing more than a “sheer...