Betof v. Suburban Hosp., Inc.

DAVID BETOF

v.SUBURBAN HOSPITAL, INC., et al.

Civil Action No. DKC 11-1452

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Date: June 29, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination case is the motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment filed by Defendants Suburban Hospital, Inc. ("Suburban Hospital" or "the hospital"), and Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation ("JHHS") (ECF No. 21). The relevant issues have been briefed, and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are either alleged by Plaintiff David Betof or taken in the light most favorable to him. On April 9, 2007, Suburban Hospital hired Mr. Betof, a Caucasian male, as alaboratory operations manager.¹ At that time, Mr. Betof was supervised by David Hornbeck, the hospital's division director of laboratory services, and he "consistently received raises and positive performance evaluations." (ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 15). In October 2009, Mr. Hornbeck used the "N-word" to describe several African-American employees working at the hospital. (ECF No. 21-2, at 1). Mr. Betof demanded that Mr. Hornbeck stop using such offensive language in the workplace, but Mr. Hornbeck "continued to use the same racial epithet in reference to other African-American employees," including Dr. Jeronica Goodwin, a human resources director at Suburban Hospital. (ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 20). As a result, Mr. Betof filed an EEOC complaint against Mr. Hornbeck with Dr. Goodwin and Dennis Parnell, Vice President of Human Resources, alleging a problem of race discrimination in his department. Suburban Hospital "took no action against Mr. Hornbeck" as a result of Mr. Betof's complaint (ECF No. 21-2, at 1), and Mr. Parnell informed Mr. Betof that "there were no other witnesses to Mr. Hornbeck's racial epithets" (ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 25).

Beginning in May 2010, numerous African-American employees in the same department filed EEOC complaints with the hospital, some of which implicated Mr. Hornbeck. According to Mr. Betof, none of these complaints "mentioned [his] name." (ECF No. 21-2, at 2).² Shortly thereafter, Suburban Hospital terminated Mr. Hornbeck due to compliance violations in his division.³

Around the same time, the hospital also promoted two Caucasian employees without first posting the availability of the positions they filled, "which violated the Company's policies." (Id.). Several minority employees complained to Mr. Betof that they believed this promotion process was discriminatory. In response, Mr. Betof "warned the Human Resources department" about these concerns and urged the department not to follow through with the promotions in this manner. (Id.). Suburban Hospital nonetheless promoted the previously selected employees.

Approximately two months later, on July 14, 2010, Mr. Parnell and Dr. Goodwin met with the employees in Mr. Betof's department to discuss "the racial issues" raised by the numerousEEOC complaints that had been filed. (Id. ). Just prior to the meeting, Dr. Goodwin indicated that hospital management was unsure why employees continued to file such complaints despite Mr. Hornbeck's departure. She then "told Mr. Betof that he was being implicated as . . . an individual responsible for alleged racial discrimination" in that department. (ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 31). Dr. Goodwin also remarked that "[s]ometimes the person who files the discrimination complaint" - referring to Mr. Betof's October 2009 complaint - "does so to hide [his] own culpability." (ECF No. 21-2, at 2). Mr. Betof defended himself and stated that "nothing had even been done" with regard to his EEOC complaint. (Id. ). Later, at the meeting, Dr. Goodwin commented to Mr. Betof that Suburban Hospital "had a problem in that there were no minorities in senior leadership." (Id. ).

Two days later, on July 16, 2010, Mr. Betof met with Mr. Parnell. During this meeting, Mr. Parnell informed Mr. Betof that a change was needed and that Mr. Betof's employment with Suburban Hospital would be terminated. Mr. Betof's termination letter stated, in relevant part, as follows:

During the past several months, many employee-related issues have surfaced in the core laboratory which have caused us to assess the effectiveness of management of the lab. This week, we conducted several discussions with the laboratory staff in an effort to better understand why we continue to grapple with these employee issues.

After careful consideration of the issues presented to us by the staff, we have concluded that a change in management is required to correct these issues.

(ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 36). Deborah Ayres, a white female "who had never held a laboratory director position," was selected to replace Mr. Betof. (Id. ¶ 35).

B. Procedural Background

Mr. Betof filed a charge of discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations approximately four months later. In the charge of discrimination, Mr. Betof stated that he believed his termination stemmed from discrimination "based on [his] race and sex," as well as retaliation for the complaints he had made. (ECF No. 21-2, at 2). On May 27, 2011, more than 180 days after he filed the charge of discrimination, Mr. Betof filed a complaint in this court against Suburban Hospital, John Hopkins University, and Johns Hopkins Medicine, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. , 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act ("FEPA"), Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606. (ECF No. 1). Suburban Hospital and Johns Hopkins Medicine moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summaryjudgment,⁴ and Johns Hopkins University moved to dismiss. On August 5, 2011, Mr. Betof moved to amend his complaint, and the court granted this request. (ECF Nos. 8-9).⁵

One week later, Mr. Betof moved for leave to file a second amended complaint listing JHHS as a defendant, removing Johns Hopkins Medicine as a defendant, and adding a claim of gender discrimination under Title VII and § 1981. (ECF No. 11). Before the court had ruled on this motion, Mr. Betof filed a stipulation of dismissal as to all claims against Johns Hopkins University. (ECF No. 13). The court approved the stipulation of dismissal on August 17, 2011, and granted Mr. Betof's motion for leave to amend approximately two weeks later. On September 13, 2011, Mr. Betof requested leave to file a third amended complaint ("the complaint") to remove references to Johns Hopkins University from his pleading. (ECF No. 18). The remaining defendants consented to the motion, and the court granted Mr. Betof's request.

On September 28, 2011, Suburban Hospital and JHHS moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 21).Mr. Betof filed his opposition on October 17, 2011. (ECF No. 22). Defendants timely replied. (ECF No. 23).

II. Standards of Review

Defendants' motion implicates two standards of review. Here, two exhibits submitted by Suburban Hospital and JHHS are relevant to resolution of the pending motion: (1) the charge of discrimination that Mr. Betof filed with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, and (2) the affidavit of Dr. Goodwin. Generally, when "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Courts in this district, however, have repeatedly held that the plaintiff's charge of discrimination, when attached to a defendant's motion to dismiss, may be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. E.g., Avery v. Astrue, No. WDQ-11-2612, 2012 WL 1554646, at *1 n.4 (D.Md. Apr. 27, 2012); Cuffee v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 755 F.Supp.2d 672, 676 & n.2 (D.Md. 2010); Garrison v. McCormick & Co., Inc., No. JFM 10-CV-0298, 2010 WL 2651639, at *1 n.2 (D.Md. June 30, 2010).⁶

With regard to Mr. Betof's race discrimination claim, the parties present arguments that require consideration of both exhibits. Accordingly, Defendants' motion will be treated as a motion for summary judgment as to that count. With regard to the remaining claims, the parties' arguments address whether Mr. Betof has stated a claim for relief, and the court can resolve these arguments by looking solely to the complaint and the charge of discrimination. Defendants' motion will thus be treated as one to dismiss as to these claims.

A. Standard of Review for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). A plaintiff's complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a), which requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Nevertheless, "Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3(2007). That showing must consist of more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" or "naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

At this stage, the court must consider all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and must construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)). In evaluating the complaint, the court need not accept unsupported legal allegations. Revene v....