Forrest v. Balt. City

1

JEROME FORREST, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 1:22-cv-03220-JMC

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 6, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J Mark Coulson, United States Magistrate Judge.

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff, Lt. Jerome Forrest, filed this employment discrimination case against Defendant, Baltimore Police Department (“BPD” or “Defendant”).^[1](ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has brought five Counts against Defendant: (I) Violation of Title VII - Race Discrimination, (II) Violation of Title VII - Hostile Work Environment, (III) Violation of Title VII - Retaliation, (IV) Section 1983 claim for Violation of Plaintiff's Civil Rights Under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, and (V) Violation of Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”). Id. at pp 10-21.^[2] Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 10). In addition to Defendant's Motion, the Court has considered Plaintiff's Opposition (ECF No. 11) and Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 14). The Court concludes that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D Md. 2021). For the reasons explained below, the Court shall grant Defendant's Motion in its entirety, except that some claims will be dismissed with prejudice while others shall be dismissed without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

“At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court takes the allegations of the complaint as true, . . . and [it] construes any disputed allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ”^[3]Krell v. Queen Anne's Cnty., No. JKB-18-637, 2018 WL 6523883, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2018) (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff is an African American male. (ECF No. 1 at p. 4, ¶ 14). Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since February 28, 2001. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 22. Plaintiff is a member of Baltimore City Lodge No. 3, Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”). Id. at p. 4, ¶ 17. The FOP is a Maryland corporation that is designated as the exclusive representative of Baltimore Police Officers holding the rank of, amongst others, lieutenant. Id. Among other responsibilities, the FOP aids in labor management relations. Id. at p. 4, ¶ 19. The relationship between Defendant and the FOP is governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Id. at p. 4, ¶ 17. A Memorandum of Understanding II covered Unit II employees, which includes police lieutenants. Id. at p. 4, ¶ 18.

For nearly the entirety of his career with Defendant, Plaintiff has been employed as a Lieutenant in the Internal Affairs Section (“IAS”). See id. at p. 5, ¶ 22. In early 2018, Major Stephanie Lansey-an African American Female-was appointed to the Office of Professional Responsibly (“OPR”).^[4] Id. at p. 5, ¶ 23. Also in early 2018, Chief David Cali-a White male- was appointed to OPR. Id. Since the appointment of Major Lansey and Chief Cali, Plaintiff has “faced a series of actions that have detrimentally affected his position as the Administrative Lieutenant at IAS.” Id. Due to this detrimental series of actions, Plaintiff interviewed and was selected for a position with Defendant's Special Operations Section (“SOS”). Id. In light of his selection to SOS, Plaintiff submitted his Form 70 transfer on November 27, 2018. Id.

Plaintiff informed Major Lansey and Chief Cali of Plaintiff's selection to SOS, but they replied that Plaintiff would not be reassigned to SOS until a suitable replacement for Plaintiff arrived. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 24. Major Lansey and Chief Cali signed Plaintiff's Form 70 without indicating that the transfer was pending the appointment of Plaintiff's suitable replacement, and the refusal to transfer Plaintiff was in direct contradiction to Defendant's policy and practice. Id. In the interim, although Plaintiff had previously been responsible for supervising ten individuals- half of whom were fellow officers and half of whom were civilian employees-Plaintiff's supervisory responsibility was reduced to two individuals. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 25. Plaintiff was also removed from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Consent Decree Discussion Team for IAS. Id. Further, on or about November 20, 2018, Plaintiff discovered that his access level was dropped from Level 1 to Level 2, and this drop in access level prevented Plaintiff from performing several of his duties. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 26. These duties were reassigned amongst other employees, including two White males, one Hispanic male, one African American male, one African American female, and one White female. Id. Major Lansey, without the knowledge of Chief Cali, ordered Plaintiff's change of access. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 27. When Plaintiff asked Major Lansey why she had ordered the change in access, Major Lansey replied that she “did not have to explain herself to [Plaintiff].” Id.

On or about December 5, 2018, IAS command sent an email over Defendant's Broadcast stating that members should discontinue the practice of contacting specific individuals in IAS- specifically Plaintiff-by email or telephone to obtain informational requests. Id. at pp. 6-7, ¶ 30. Rather, all such requests should be sent to an email to which Plaintiff did not have access. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 30. On or about December 20, 2018, Plaintiff's “admin access” to IApro and BlueTeam was restricted under the direction of Major Lansey. Id. at p. 7, ¶ 31. This restriction prevented Plaintiff from making changes and correcting errors on the “backend of the system,” and the restriction prevented Plaintiff from assisting field supervisors when they encountered technical issues with BlueTeam. Id.

On or about January 11, 2019, Sgt. Lloyd^[5]and Plaintiff met with Chief Cali and Major Lansey about Plaintiff's transfer to SOS. Id. at p. 7, ¶ 32. During this meeting, Major Lansey and Chief Cali informed Plaintiff that he would not be transferred until they found a replacement.^[6]Id. Major Lansey and Chief Cali refused Plaintiff's transfer at that time despite the fact that several other lieutenants were already in IAS. Id. Notably, other officers in IAS had previously been reassigned without the need for a replacement beforehand. Id. Furthermore, Chief Cali did not have anyone in mind to replace Plaintiff, nor did Chief Cali have any specific plan to obtain a replacement. Id. Chief Cali asserted that he would be “crazy” if he released someone from IAS before obtaining another person as a replacement. Id.

On or about January 28, 2019, Plaintiff discovered that his access level was demoted from Level 2 to Level 3. Id. at p. 7, ¶ 33. Furthermore, Lt. Gene Ryan was transferred into IAS as Plaintiff' replacement. Id. at pp. 7-8, ¶ 33. Despite the arrival of Plaintiff's replacement, Plaintiff was never notified of when to report to his new assignment in SOS. Id. at p. 8, ¶ 33. As of February 4, 2019, IAS had a total of nine lieutenants, but Plaintiff was still not permitted to leave for his new position with SOS. Id. at p. 8, ¶ 34.

At some point, Plaintiff involved the FOP, and the FOP notified Chief Cali and Major Lansey of the violation of the FOP contract. Id. Shortly thereafter, Major Lansey summoned Plaintiff into her office and informed Plaintiff that he was no longer permitted to continue his secondary employment with CI-Technologies. Id. at p. 8, ¶ 35. Plaintiff had enjoyed this secondary employment since 2015, and the loss of this secondary employment caused Plaintiff significant loss in income and job opportunity. Id.

After the FOP became involved, Plaintiff finally consummated his transfer to SOS. See Id. at p. 8, ¶ 36. Plaintiff provides no indication as to specifically when this transfer occurred. Plaintiff worked in SOS for eleven months. Id. After Plaintiff was with SOS for eleven months, a lieutenant's position became available in IAS. Id. Although Major Lansey was still assigned to IAS, Plaintiff inquired about the position and was told that under the new Deputy Commissioner (“DC”), Brian Nadeau, things would be different. Id. With this assurance, Plaintiff submitted a transfer request to return to IAS. Id. Pursuant to his request, Plaintiff interviewed for the position and was selected to return due to his experience and vast knowledge of working in IAS. Id.^[7]

Plaintiff's new supervisor at IAS was Capt. Donald Diehl. Id. at p. 8, ¶ 37. Prior to Plaintiff reporting back to IAS, DC Nadeau directed Capt. Diehl to speak with Plaintiff regarding how things would be different upon Plaintiff's return to IAS. Id. Capt. Diehl informed Plaintiff that DC Nadeau instructed Major Lansey to not have any direct contact with Plaintiff. Id. However, this instruction caused Plaintiff reputational harm and emotional distress. Id. at p. 9, ¶ 37. Furthermore, Plaintiff suffered a negative impact to his work because he had to work around this gap in his chain of command. Id.

In contrast to Plaintiff, other officers not within his protected category received more favorable treatment and have been approved for transfers without replacements in place: (1) Lt. Robert Morris (White male), who transferred from Ethics^[8]to Criminal Intel, (2) Sgt. Michael Brinn (White Male), (3) Sgt. Theresa Scott (African American female), (4) CSO Michelle Cunningham (African American female), and (5) OSS IIII Debbie Crocket (African American Female). Id. at p. 9, ¶ 39(a)-(b). Other than for Sgt. Brinn, the Complaint provides no details regarding from which divisions the purported comparators were transferred, nor does the Complaint specify to where those purported comparators were transferred.

Since his transfer back to IAS, Plaintiff “has since been the target of race and color discrimination, retaliation, and workplace hostility.” Id. at p. 10, ¶ 40. Plaintiff filed a formal Charge with the Baltimore Field Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity...