Holloway v. Maryland

CHARLES W. HOLLOWAY, PLAINTIFF, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., DEFENDANTS.

Civil Action No. RDB-20-0377

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

August 10, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Charles W. Holloway ("Plaintiff" or "Holloway") brings this employment discrimination action against Defendants State of Maryland, Maryland Military Department, and Freestate Challenge Academy (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges race-based violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act ("MFEPA"), Md. Code Ann., State Gov't, § 20-601, et seq.¹ Presently pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4). The parties' submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court "accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts in a complaint and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Wikimedia Found.v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015)). Holloway, an African-American man, is a former employee of Defendant Maryland Military Department, where he first served as the Program Coordinator/Deputy Director of Defendant Freestate Challenge Academy ("Freestate") in 2014 and later as the Program Director of Freestate in 2016. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-16, ECF No. 1.) Freestate Challenge Academy is a residential educational program for at-risk adolescents aged 16 to 18 years. (Id. ¶ 11.)

When Holloway was first hired to serve as Freestate's Program Coordinator/Deputy Director in 2014, his supervisor was then-Program Director Charles Rose ("Rose"), a white male. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) From 2014 to 2016, Holloway alleges that he received outstanding evaluations from Rose. (Id. ¶ 13.) In or around June of 2016, Rose was terminated, and Holloway was subsequently assigned to serve as the Acting Program Director of Freestate. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) In or around November of 2016, Holloway was promoted to Program Director of Freestate. (Id. ¶ 16.)

While serving as Freestate's Program Director, Holloway alleges that he was discriminated against by the Maryland Military Department's Director of Human Resources, Nicholas Pindale ("Pindale") and the Acting Chief of Staff Jeffrey Teller ("Teller"). (Id. ¶¶ 17-62.) Specifically, Holloway alleges that Pindale was unresponsive for ten months to Holloway's request for review and approval of an attendance policy for Freestate and that Pindale eventually delegated the request to Human Resources Deputy Director Princess Neal Washington, an African-American woman. (Id. ¶ 18.) Holloway alleges Pindale did not want to interact with Holloway because of his race. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21.) In addition, Pindale allegedlyasked one of Holloway's subordinates, a white female, if she felt "safe" under Holloway's leadership. (Id. ¶ 33.) Despite Pindale's alleged discriminatory behavior, Holloway asserts that he continued to be a top performer and regularly received outstanding evaluations from then-Chief of Staff Annette Deener ("Deener") from 2016 to 2018. (Id. ¶ 22.) Deener retired in January of 2018 and was replaced by Jeffrey Teller. (Id. ¶ 23.)

On or about January 5, 2018, Holloway allegedly discovered that he was being paid approximately $5,000 less than Rose had made as Program Director. (Id. ¶ 26.) When he notified Pindale of this discovery, Pindale allegedly admitted that Holloway "was not being compensated fairly and that it needed to be addressed immediately." (Id. ¶ 28.) Pindale allegedly never rectified the situation. (Id. ¶ 30.) On or about February 1, 2018, Holloway filed an internal complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Officer Kirsten Williamson for discrimination and harassment/hostile work environment on the part of Pindale. (Id. ¶ 31.) Mediation resulted in an agreement between Holloway and the Defendants but Holloway alleges that the Defendants breached the terms of the agreement. (Id. ¶ 32.)

On or about March 1, 2018, Holloway filed a second internal complaint with EEO Officer Williamson for discriminatory harassment by Pindale. (Id. ¶ 36.) After another round of mediation resulted in an agreement "in which Mr. Pindale agreed that he would work directly with Mr. Holloway regarding a problem or concern with the Academy," Pindale allegedly breached this agreement. (Id. ¶ 37.)

In or around April of 2018, before a budget meeting, Jeffrey Teller observed police presence on the grounds of Freestate Challenge Academy and contacted Chief of Staff Deener. (Id. ¶ 38.) Deener contacted Holloway to inquire about the situation, expressing concern thatshe had not been informed of the police presence. (Id.) Holloway alleges that Teller's conduct "undermined Mr. Holloway's leadership and hindered his ability to effectively manage the Academy." (Id. ¶ 40.)

In or around May of 2018, Holloway alleges that Teller personally attacked Holloway's leadership and management during a meeting. (Id. ¶ 41.) Teller allegedly admonished Holloway for not being an effective leader because he was not working with Pindale. (Id. ¶ 42.) When Holloway attempted to explain that Pindale was the one who refused to work with Holloway, Teller allegedly dismissed Holloway's explanations. (Id. ¶ 43.) In another incident in May of 2018, Teller allegedly "publicly humiliated and demeaned Mr. Holloway in front of his colleagues and subordinates by purposefully having his name omitted from the employee recognition program, and replacing it with Mr. Pindale's name." (Id. ¶ 47.)

On or about May 25, 2018, Teller allegedly issued Holloway a "fabricated disciplinary performance evaluation alleging that [Holloway] had mismanaged the budget." (Id. ¶ 48.) Holloway denies any responsibility for the budget, asserting that another officer was actually responsible for budget oversight. (Id. ¶ 49.) On or about May 29, 2018, Holloway filed a third discrimination complaint with EEO Officer Williamson. (Id. ¶ 53.)

In or around June of 2018, Holloway requested a meeting with Teller to discuss procurement card access and Teller scheduled the meeting at 6:30 a.m., one and a half hours before Holloway reported to work. (Id. ¶ 54.) At the meeting, Teller allegedly "violently yelled at and berated Mr. Holloway for 35 minutes," told Holloway he was "beneath him" and that "he could only address him as 'sir,'" and "violently slammed documents" against the table.(Id. ¶¶ 55-57.) Teller also allegedly stated that he was aware of Holloway's complaints against Pindale and that Teller "would be involved." (Id. ¶ 58.)

Also in June of 2018, Defendants administered a "climate survey" at Freestate to get "employee input of leadership," which Holloway alleges was never administered during Rose's tenure as Program Director and was not administered in any other departments. (Id. ¶ 59.) In or around July of 2018, Teller contacted Holloway's subordinates to "question [Holloway's] whereabouts," but did not contact Holloway directly. (Id. ¶ 60.)

On or about August 17, 2018, Holloway's internal EEO complaints resulted in a finding of "no evidence to substantiate his claims." (Id. ¶ 64.) On or about August 22, 2018, Holloway was terminated for cause based on budget issues from a recent audit in April of 2018 and low enrollment numbers. (Id. ¶ 65; see also Termination Letter, ECF No. 6-1².) Defendants replaced Holloway with Karilynn Dunnmeyer, a white female allegedly with fewer years of supervisory experience whom Defendants paid $10,000 more. (Compl. ¶¶ 77-79.)

The EEOC having determined not to take action on Holloway's complaints, Holloway received a right to sue letter on November 16, 2019.³ (Id. ¶ 6.) On February 12, 2020,⁴ Holloway filed suit in this Court asserting three causes of action: discriminatory termination (Count I), harassment/hostile work environment (Count II), and retaliation (Count III).(Compl. ¶¶ 80-98.) On April 15, 2020, Defendants filed the presently pending Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 4.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is "to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). While a complaint need not include "detailed factual allegations," it must set forth "enough factual matter [taken as true] to suggest" a cognizable cause of action, "even if . . . [the] actual proof of those facts is improbable and . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff cannot rely on bald accusations or mere speculation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court "'must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint" and must "'draw all reasonable inferences [from those facts] in favor of the plaintiff.'" E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); Hall v. DirectTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757, 765 (4th Cir. 2017). A court, however, is not required to accept legal conclusions drawn from those facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "A court decides whether [the pleading] standard is met by separating the legal conclusions from the factual allegations, assuming the truth of only...