Levere v. Signature Props.

1

PAUL ANTHONY LEVERE, JR., Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. ELH-21-1929

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge.

In this employment discrimination case, the self-represented plaintiff, Paul Anthony Levere, Jr., has sued his former employer, Signature Properties, LLC (“Signature”). ECF 1. Levere asserts violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Id. at 3. In particular, he appears to allege failure to promote, unequal terms and conditions, and unequal pay, on the basis of race and sex. Id. at 8. The Complaint is accompanied by the “Charge” that plaintiff filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), as well as the EEOC's “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” (the “Right-to-Sue Notice”) for plaintiff's claims. ECF 1-3.

Defendant has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). ECF 13.^[1] The motion is supported by a memorandum. ECF 13-1 (collectively, the “Motion”). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF 18 (the “Opposition”). And defendant has replied. ECF 19 (the “Reply”).

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion, but with leave to file an Amended Complaint.

I. Factual Background^[2]

Plaintiff is a “black male.” ECF 1 at 7. In May 2019, he began working at Signature as a “Portfolio Sales &amp Marketing Manager.” Id. at 4. Although the Complaint is not explicit, context indicates that Signature is a property management company. See id. at 4, 7. As Portfolio Sales & Marketing Manager, plaintiff visited Signature properties; trained managers and staff “implemented policies to increase traffic;” monitored promotions, invoices, and resident and employee relations; and organized the company picnic. Id. at 4.

During the hiring process, plaintiff was interviewed by two Signature employees, Nadia Norton and Tiffany McGowan, followed by an interview with another Signature employee, Erika Orlaskey. Id. at 4. The Complaint specifies that Norton was “Portfolio Operations Manager, ” but does not provide the job titles of McGowan or Orlaskey. Id. However, the attached Charge identifies Orlaskey as Vice President and McGowan as Director of Operations. ECF 1-3 at 1. During plaintiff's interview with Orlaskey, he was asked where he saw himself working at Signature. ECF 1 at 4. Plaintiff expressed an interest in operations, but recognized that Norton already filled an operations role. Id. He also expressed an interest in a “Regional Manager position, ” but Orlaskey responded that such a position “will never be made in the company as that will never be the structure she wanted as an organization.” ECF 1 at 4. After this conversation, plaintiff accepted the Portfolio Sales & Marketing Manager position. Id.

Until “October 2020, ”^[3] Orlaskey was “little involved” in the day-to-day operations of Signature. Id. However, beginning in “October 2020, ” Orlaskey and plaintiff primarily worked to manage Signature's daily operations, because Norton was on maternity leave and McGowan was out for medical reasons. Id. Orlaskey noticed certain “deficiencies within the daily operations, ” and plaintiff suggested in response that Signature's properties should be divided into two portfolios, with him and Norton each acting as regional manager for one of the two portfolios. Id. However, “Orlaskey then reminded [plaintiff] that [Signature] would never structure that way and the regional position would not be available.” Id.

In “November 2020, ” McGowan notified plaintiff that she and Orlaskey had spoken, and had decided to promote plaintiff to “Director of Marketing & Performance.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff was informed that his salary would initially increase from $55, 000 per year to $65, 000 per year, until February, when Signature was to “acquire[] South Pointe.”^[4] Id. At that point, he was to receive an additional increase. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff was never told a specific amount for the salary increase, as it was still being negotiated with Orlaskey, but he alleges that he was told by McGowan that “the average salary for a Director was over $100k per year.”

The next February, i.e., February of 2020, McGowan was terminated. ECF 1 at 5. Later that month, it was “announced” that a new employee, Teresa Weyant, had “accepted” a position as “Regional Manager, ” and she would begin work in March. Id. Plaintiff describes himself as “shocked and stunned” that neither he nor Norton was even considered for the Regional Manager position, given his inquiries and his work performance. Id. Weyant subsequently began working at Signature “the week of March 11, 2020.” Id.^[5]

The Complaint then appears to allege, in essence, a systematic reassignment of plaintiff's responsibilities away from him. Id. For example, after starting, Weyant sent an email to Signature employees indicating that she would now handle “whatever the properties would normally reach out to [plaintiff] for.” Id. At around the same time, Signature also hired a new “corporate administrator, ” Brianna Stumpf, who took over “resident relations” from plaintiff. Id. And, in April 2020, Orlaskey advised plaintiff that another individual, whose identity plaintiff never learned, would take over “managing the systems, ” another apparent task of plaintiff for which he provides little detail. Id.

In May 2020, plaintiff completed and submitted a presentation to Signature's “owner, ” Mike Katz, at Katz's request. Id. Katz responded by asking plaintiff and Orlaskey to send him photographs of all Signature employees in color, which would apparently be included in the presentation. Id. Orlaskey indicated to plaintiff that she would revise all employee biographies, as they would be included in the presentation, and that plaintiff should send over all biographies and photographs he was receiving from employees to her so she could revise the presentation. Id. According to plaintiff, despite “numerous attempts to get this information, ” he never “received anything back to complete the presentation.” Id.

“Around June 1, 2020, ” Orlaskey called plaintiff and asked him “what position” he thought would “suit [him] best in the company, ” and “to think of a position that would work based on [his] skill set.” ECF 1 at 5. Plaintiff asked her why a Regional Manager had been hired, and why he was not considered for the position, given his past inquiries and his strong job performance. Id. Orlaskey responded that plaintiff was “not ready, ” listing as examples that he had “failed to ask her about accepting unemployment as considerable income” and he “was not proactive in bringing concerns to her such as lease expiration management.” Id. Plaintiff “corrected her ....” Id.

Orlaskey also maintained that, in fact, Weyant “was not hired as Regional Manager, ” and “her title was not assigned to her” until the biographies and pictures were “due for the presentation” mentioned above. Id. at 6.

The day after the call, on June 2, 2020, plaintiff emailed Orlaskey with thoughts on a “training role” he could assume, and his suggestion for a job description. Id. The next day, Orlaskey responded with requests for additional information, to which plaintiff responded with a clarification question. Id. Plaintiff asserts he received no response, but also alleges he spoke with Orlaskey on June 5, 2020, at which point she advised that she wanted plaintiff to “focus” on areas he viewed as “opportunities for the company and ways to implement them.” Id. In response, on June 9, 2020, plaintiff sent Orlaskey a revised job proposal. Id. And, on June 18, 2020, Orlaskey emailed plaintiff to ask for a list of his “current job responsibilities and projects.” Id.

Otherwise, plaintiff did not hear back from Orlaskey until June 22, 2020, when she talked to him after the resignation of Signature's “Sales/Marketing Manager, ” who appears to have been subordinate to plaintiff. Id. Orlaskey informed plaintiff that Signature would be outsourcing its marketing; that the administrative duties of the former Sales/Marketing Manager would be absorbed by Stumpf; that Stumpf would also take over various other duties from plaintiff, including “systems management;” and that plaintiff would be “moving into training.” ECF 1 at 6.

Levere sent a follow up email to Orlaskey on June 23, 2020, inquiring, among other things, as to his role, his title, and when he would receive the salary increase that he had been promised. Id. After receiving no response, he sent another email on June 26, 2020, containing an update regarding his training of Stumpf and several training-related questions. Id. He also asked if he was now “managing systems again, ” because, according to plaintiff, “no one else was doing it.” Id. Again, he received no response. Id.

During this period, plaintiff began to wonder why he was not included on any corporate calls, and did not know “what was going on.” Id. Orlaskey told him that there had not been any corporate calls, but “it just so happens that they talk daily and make decisions that way but it's not an actual planned call.” Id. The date of this interaction is unclear. However, plaintiff states that he did not have any interactions with Orlaskey between June 22, 2020, and July 22, 2020, when he asked to take a personal day. Id.

Then on July 28, 2020, plaintiff received an email from Orlaskey, asking him “why a system called Slope Jet was not being used by the properties per the Property Managers.” Id. No details are provided regarding Slope Jet, but from the context it appears to be an electronic system used for...