Kumar v. First Abu Dhabi Bank

DHARMENDRA KUMAR Plaintiff, v. FIRST ABU DHABI BANK USA N.V., Defendant.

Civil Action No. ELH-20-1497

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

November 13, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dharmendra Kumar, the self-represented plaintiff, has filed an employment discrimination action against First Abu Dhabi Bank USA N.V. (the "Bank"). See ECF 1 (the "Complaint"). Plaintiff, an Asian male, alleges that he experienced discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race, age, disability, and genetic information while employed by the Bank from January 29, 2019 through July 1, 2019.

In the Complaint, Kumar asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ff et seq.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 6. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 6-1, collectively the "Motion") and two exhibits. ECF 6-3; ECF 6-4. Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 8), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 8-1, the "Opposition") and six exhibits. ECF 8-2 to ECF 8-7. Defendant has replied. ECF 9.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.

I. Background¹

Mr. Kumar worked for the Bank in Washington, D.C. from around January 29, 2019 through July 31, 2019. ECF 6-1; ECF 6-3 ("EEOC Charge"). Plaintiff alleges that he has "an anxiety disorder as well as hypertension and diabetes." ECF 1 at 6. Moreover, at the time of the alleged discrimination, Kumar was over 40 years of age. Id.

Plaintiff claims that the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of the Bank "used hostile and abusive language with him" on three instances: February 22, 2019, March 25, 2019, and July 9, 2019. Id. At another unspecified time, plaintiff posits that he experienced age discrimination by the "head of IT operation[s]," because he asked "[p]laintiff['s] age at [the] work place" even though he knew that plaintiff was "over the age of 40." Id. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the "[d]efendant [was] hostile with [him] and asked [a] personal family question on" May 9, 2019. Id.

As a result of the "multiple [instances of] harrassement [sic] [and] age descrimination [sic] at [the] work place," plaintiff claims that he "has constant chest pain." Id. He posits that he was admitted to the hospital "for acute chest pain" and "other health issues and treated" in mid-April 2019. Id. Moreover, plaintiff contends that his family has "suffered...because of this pain," including his "spouse and kids." Id.

Kumar filed a formal Charge of Discrimination ("Charge") with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on October 20, 2019. ECF 6-3.² Kumar checked the boxes on the form for discrimination based on race, retaliation, age, and disability. Id. He did not check color, sex, religion, national origin, genetic information, or "other." Id. Kumar specified that the earliest date of discrimination occurred on January 28, 2019, and the latest date was August 1, 2019. Id.

In the Charge, plaintiff stated as follows, id.:

I was employed with the above-named employer since January 28, 2019. I was then terminated on August 1, 2019. My job classification was Head of IT.

Since the beginning of my employment I was subject to a hostile work environment by CEO Husam Arabiat and IT Manager Kobi Otchere. They not only cussed at me but asked how old I was on a multitude of occasions and made comments that those younger than me would charge less money for work. This ongoing harassment caused me a great deal of stress, and on or around July 25, 2019 I emailed HR requesting disability forms and they never responded. On August 1, 2019 I was terminated, and then went to HR to complain about the harassment I had endured. I believe I have been discriminated and retaliated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Acts of 1990, as amended. I believe I have been discriminated against due to my age (44) in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended. I believe I have been discriminated against due to my race (Asian), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The EEOC mailed a "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" letter to plaintiff on March 2, 2020. ECF 6-4 ("Right to Sue Letter") at 1. Plaintiff's suit was docketed on June 5, 2020. ECF 1.

II. Standards of Review

1. Rule 12(b)(6)

A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Fessler v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 959 F.3d 146, 152 (4th Cir. 2020); In reBirmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It provides that a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (citation omitted) ("Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ."); see also Fauconier v. Clarke, 996 F.3d 265, 276 (4th Cir. 2020); Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Weil, 918 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2019); Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 112 (4th Cir. 2017). To be sure, a plaintiff need not include "detailed factual allegations" in order to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Moreover, federal pleading rules "do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted." Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10, 10 (2014) (per curiam). But, mere "'naked assertions' of wrongdoing" are generally insufficient to state a claim for relief. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

In other words, the rule demands more than bald accusations or mere speculation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). If a complaint provides no more than "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," it is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "[A]n unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation" does not state a plausible claim of relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Rather, to satisfy the minimal requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), the complaint 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." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (internal quotation marks omitted).

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., 637 F.3d at 440 (citations omitted); see Semenova v. Md. Transit Admin., 845 F.3d 564, 567 (4th Cir. 2017); Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 484 (4th Cir. 2015); Kendall v. Balcerzak, 650 F.3d 515, 522 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 943 (2011). But, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions drawn from the facts. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986); Glassman v. Arlington Cty., 628 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir. 2010). "A court decides whether [the pleading] standard is met by separating the legal conclusions from the factual allegations, assuming the truth of only the factual allegations, and then determining whether those allegations allow the court to reasonably infer" that the plaintiff is entitled to the legal remedy sought. A Society Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 346 (4th. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 937 (2012).

Courts ordinarily do not "'resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses'" through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Bing v. Brio Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d605, 616 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016); Edwards, 178 F.3d at 243. However, "in the relatively rare circumstances where facts sufficient to rule on an affirmative defense are alleged in the complaint, the defense may be reached by a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6)." Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc); accord Pressley v. Tupperware Long Term Disability Plan, 553 F.3d 334, 336 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Rule 12(b)(6) "is intended [only] to test the legal adequacy of the complaint," Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1993), "[t]his principle only applies . . . if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense 'clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.'" Goodman, ...