Brown v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City

INSHALLAH BROWN Plaintiff v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY, et al. Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-16-3616

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

July 26, 2017

MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

The Court has before it Defendant Housing Authority of Baltimore City's Motion to Dismiss Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.

I. BACKGROUND

At times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Inshallah Brown ("Brown"), an African-American woman, was employed by Defendant Housing Authority of Baltimore City ("HABC") and received housing through HABC's Housing Choice Voucher Program. Brown had problems with her landlords and problems in the work environment that eventually resulted in the termination of her employment and her filing the instant lawsuit. In this lawsuit, Brown presents claims in Six Counts, seeking to impose liability for racial discrimination and retaliation against HABC.

By the instant motion, HABC seeks dismissal of all claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure¹ and/or Rule 12(c), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.

The Court finds the summary judgment motion premature and disallows it without prejudice. As discussed herein, the Court grants dismissal of some, but not all, claims asserted in the Complaint.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. A complaint need only contain "'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citations omitted).

When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to theplaintiff. However, conclusory statements or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not [suffice]." Id. A complaint must allege sufficient facts "to cross 'the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Inquiry into whether a complaint states a plausible claim is "'a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Thus, if "the well-pleaded facts [contained within a complaint] do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (alteration in original)).

B. Rule 12(c)

The motion for judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) is, in the instant case, duplicative of the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013)("A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is assessed under the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).").

III. DISCUSSION

A. Factual Allegations²

At all times relevant hereto, HABC has been a "public body corporate and politic" that administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program ("HCVP") in Baltimore City. Md. Code Ann., Hous. & Cmty. Dev. § 15-104 (2006).

Brown is an individual who commenced her employment with HABC on February 14, 2006, as a maintenance worker. Brown was promoted rapidly and, in the year 2011, began working in the Leasing Department of the HCVP until the termination of her employment on April 15, 2015. Complaint [ECF No. 1] ¶¶³ 3,4.

1. First EEOC Charge: Race-Based Discrimination

In 2012, Brown received a voucher for subsidized housing through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. ¶ 12. She utilized the voucher and rented an apartment from DefendantsDwayne London and Alicia London ("the Landlords").

In June 2014, Brown filed a complaint against the Landlords with Code Enforcement, Housing, and Community Development and the HCVP, alleging various health and safety violations in her home. Two inspectors investigated Brown's allegations and wrote up violations against the Landlords in June 2014.

Thereafter, and allegedly in retaliation, Landlord Dwayne London sent emails to Brown's managers at HABC falsely alleging that Brown did not pay rent and that she had unauthorized occupants and drug activity in her home. ¶ 19. These false allegations put Brown in danger of losing her job and housing voucher. ¶¶ 20-21.

On July 15, 2014, Brown was asked to meet about these allegations with HABC's then Acting Administrator, Norman Young, and the Associate Deputy Director of the HCVP, Nicholas Calace ("Calace"). In the meeting, Calace questioned Brown about the allegations. Brown denied them and told Calace that she thought that the Landlords had made false accusations against her to retaliate for her housing complaint against them and because Brown is an African-American woman. ¶¶ 33, 36.

Dwayne London gave Calace notice that he wanted to inspect Brown's house on a specific date. Brown did not allow inspection on the date London requested because of her work schedule. As a result of the scheduling conflict, Calacethreatened to withhold Brown's housing voucher and possibly terminate her job if she did not allow London to inspect on the day he wanted. ¶¶ 29-32.

On September 18, 2014, Brown filed an administrative complaint with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights ("the First Charge") [ECF No. 19-5 at 6] stating therein that she believed she had been discriminated against on the basis of her race and describing the alleged Landlord violations and her complaint about the way the situation was handled by Calace. She stated "I do not believe that Caucasian employees are treated the same way. I believe that Mr. Calace's actions and statements were designed to harass and intimidate me. I believe that the only reason that I am being treated in this manner is because of my race." Id. at 6.

Brown has not supplied the document that presented the findings resulting from her First Charge or the date upon which the findings were made. However, she does not allege that there was any finding of probable cause that the alleged race-based discrimination occurred.

2. Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Allegations

Brown alleges that in 2014-2015, an assistant manager, Dawnay L. Green-Chrisp ("Green-Chrisp"), and Brown's supervisor, David Harper ("Harper"), repeatedly removed files from her deskwithout notice, which made it difficult for her to do her job. Brown alleges that she "believed that her efforts to do her job were being sabotaged by management because of her race and because of retaliation over her filing the EEOC complaint against Calace." ¶ 64. Both Harper and Green-Chrisp are African Americans.

Christopher Monroe ("Monroe"), a white male, was a program specialist who worked on the same files as Brown. Brown alleges that Monroe often did not process his part of the files on time. Monroe's untimeliness caused Brown's files to be delinquent. Brown was disciplined and eventually terminated for not processing files in a timely manner. ¶ 68. Monroe was not disciplined for his lateness and was promoted. Green-Chrisp also had delinquent files, but was not disciplined.

Brown alleges that she received a negative performance evaluation and was placed, without notice to her, under a Performance Improvement Program ("PIP") by Harper and Calace.⁴ Brown alleges that the HABC management sabotaged her efforts to comply with the PIP and perform her job duties by giving her extra work with short deadlines, failing to answer her questions about the PIP, and not attending progress meetings with her asspecified under the PIP.

Brown filed a grievance in January 2015 regarding being placed on the PIP, her heavy caseload, and the files being removed from her desk. A grievance hearing took place on February 24, 2015. ¶ 85.

In March 2015, Brown received a warning for an unprocessed account, which Brown attributes to someone's removing the file from her desk and a computer system malfunction. ¶ 95.

On April 15, 2015, Brown received notice that HABC had terminated her employment. ¶ 102.

Brown filed another grievance against HABC through the Union, AFSCME. At her grievance hearing, Brown's witnesses were not allowed to testify and the hearing was stopped prematurely because a Human Resources Officer had a meeting and because the Union representative said the grievance would be handled in arbitration. ¶¶ 104-05. Brown was notified on July 10, 2015, that the HABC Hearing Officer ruled against her grievance and that the Union would not take her case to arbitration. ¶ 106.

On June 1, 2015, Brown filed an EEOC Complaint ("the Second Charge") [ECF No. 19-5 at 16] claiming that HABC had retaliated against her for filing the First Charge. On August 31, 2016, she received a "right to sue letter" in response.

B. Procedural Posture

Brown filed the Complaint [ECF No. 1] on November 2, 2016, asserting claims in six Counts:

Count I — Racial discrimination/harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) (against HABC);

Count II — Racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (against HABC);

Count III — Retaliation claim under Title VII, § 2003(e) [sic], § 704(a), and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (against HABC);

Count IV — Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (against HABC and Mayor and City Council);

Count V — Tortious Interference With Employment or "Economic Advantage" under Maryland Law (against the Londons only);

Count VI — Intentional Infliction

...