Mulamba v. The Bd. of Educ.

1

ISAAC MULAMBA v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY

No. 1656-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 13, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-03-CV-23-001611

Shaw Ripken, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

SHAW J.

Appellant, Isaac Mulamba, appeals an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County granting a motion to dismiss filed by Appellee, the Board of Education of Baltimore County. In 2023, Appellant filed a civil claim against Appellee, alleging that while employed with the Baltimore County Public Schools ("BCPS"), he had been subjected to employment discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and age; workplace harassment; retaliation; negligent hiring; abusive/constructive discharge; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and abuse of process. Following a hearing, the court issued a memorandum opinion, finding that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant timely noted this appeal. Appellant's questions presented have been rephrased^[1] as follows:

1. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Appellant's employment discrimination claim based on race, national origin, sex, and age discrimination?

2. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Appellant's retaliation claim?

3. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Appellant's workplace harassment claim?

4. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Appellant's constructive termination claim?

5. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Appellant's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim?

We hold that the circuit court did not err, and accordingly, we affirm the judgments.

Appellant, in his brief, requests that we review several additional issues not decided by the circuit court, including Count I The Breach of a Legal Duty, Count II Intentional Misrepresentation, Count IV Breach of Contract, Count V Liability for Intentional Torts, and Count VI Negligent Misrepresentation: Breach of an Implied Contract and Gross Negligence. Maryland Rule 8-131(a) provides that, on appeal, we will not ordinarily "decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court." Md. Rule 8-131(a); see DiCicco v. Balt. Cnty., 232 Md.App. 218, 225 (2017). Because the circuit court was not asked to and did not make any rulings on Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI, we decline to consider the additional issues.

In his brief, Appellant, also, did not address the circuit court's dismissal of his negligent hiring or abuse of process claims. He, further, did not address his claim involving judicial impartiality, his alleged right to counsel, or his challenges to the discovery-related rulings in the questions presented section of his brief. Thus, in accordance with Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(3), we will not address arguments that Appellant failed to "set forth in the 'Questions Presented' section" of his brief. Peterson v. Evapco, Inc., 238 Md.App. 1, 62 (2018) (quoting Green v. N. Arundel Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 126 Md.App. 394, 426 (1999), aff'd, 366 Md. 597 (2001)).

BACKGROUND

Appellant a man of Central African descent in his forties^[2], accepted a job with Appellee in January 2022, within the Department of Special Education as a data analyst. Because he resided in Fairfax, Virginia, and his office space was located in Towson, Maryland, he negotiated a work-from-home agreement with the former Executive Director of Special Education. Appellant was allowed to work three days a week remotely and was assigned an office space. Sometime during his employment, Appellant offered to "share his office space with" Catherine Armstrong, a Caucasian woman, who worked part-time as an administrative assistant.

In June 2022, the Executive Director of Special Education resigned and Allison Myers, a Caucasian woman, became Appellant's supervisor. She scheduled an online meeting with Appellant and Conya Bailey, her Chief Assistant, an African American woman, to discuss the office's post-COVID-19 workplace policy and his return to the office. Appellant was also advised that his workspace had been reassigned to Ms. Armstrong and that he would be moved to a cubicle. Appellant disagreed with a return to the office, stating that his duties did not need to be completed from an office, and he had a long commute to the BCPS office location. Appellant also opposed the reassignment of his workspace. Appellant alleged that his supervisor, Ms. Myers, was dismissive of him and stated that she told him that she preferred that another data analyst, Dan Klinger, a Caucasian male, perform her data requests. Under previous management, Appellant's role as a data manager included monitoring data between BCPS and the Maryland State Department of Education ("MSDE"). Appellant's "employment primarily focused on comprehending the MSDE's business rules, which included state formulas. This knowledge aided in monitoring performance metrics, supporting program evaluations, and implanting corrective actions." This responsibility also provided Appellant with "special access privileges to certain server spaces." Appellant claimed that these duties were based on an interest he shared with his former supervisor regarding the importance of such information in decision-making. For example, Appellant would track the suspension rate among minorities in BCPS schools. However, when Appellant "inquired from the team about how MSDE acquired data from BCPS, no one showed any interest." Appellant asserted in his complaint that "[t]he previous Executive Director was the only individual who expressed concern about [MSDE] outcomes." Appellant described Ms. Myers as a "typical bureaucrat" who wanted to "maintain the status quo" and did not take an interest in the MSDE data once she became Executive Director. He concluded that the meeting was an attempt "to assert female power/authority in the predominantly female workplace" and a result of Ms. Myers' preference for white employees.

There was no immediate return to work for employees as the office space was not ready. On August 12, 2022, Ms. Bailey sent a departmental email to employees advising them to continue to work remotely until further notice. Neither party indicates in the record exactly when Appellee requested its employees to return to the office. On August 25, 2022, Ms. Bailey contacted Appellant, asking why he had not been reporting to work. He responded that he was waiting for confirmation that the office was ready for in-person work. He was then directed to return to work. Ms. Myers also mailed letters via certified mail to Appellant's residence demanding that he return to work. In response, Appellant sent a cease and desist letter to Ms. Myers asking her to communicate with him only through email.

On August 29, 2022, Appellant returned to the office and sat in his previously designated office. Ms. Armstrong had an exchange with Appellant regarding the space and she later returned with Ms. Myers, Ms. Bailey, and Ms. Claudine Daniel, an administrative assistant who was an African American woman. The four women demanded that Appellant move to his cubicle. Appellant alleges that "[a]s the commotion continued, several people began to emerge from their offices to see what was happening." Appellant refused to move and remained there for the rest of the day. He described feeling deeply embarrassed by the interaction and that he did not leave his office that day for lunch. Appellant portrayed the incident as "a total display of collective and intimidating female power[,]" and he informed the women that he would be reporting the incident to the internal Equal Employment Opportunity Office ("EEO Office"). The next day, Appellant found his belongings had been removed from the office and placed in his assigned cubicle. Appellant reported the incident to BCPS' EEO Office on September 2, 2022.

Ms. Myers scheduled an in-person meeting with Appellant for September 6, 2022. Appellant was waiting for the meeting in his cubicle when he overheard Ms. Daniel state, "This African guy wants an office! Would he have an office in Africa? He already has a job, he should be content! Instead, he wants an office on the top." The comment was followed by laughter. During the meeting, Ms. Myers informed Appellant that she would be conducting a performance evaluation. Appellant informed Ms. Myers that he had filed a complaint with BCPS' EEO Office.

On September 12, 2022, Ms. Myers emailed Appellant to inform him that she had scheduled a disciplinary meeting for insubordination for the following day. She also informed Appellant that he had the right to bring union representation with him to the meeting. Appellant refused to attend the meeting, stating that he would not meet with anyone until he obtained an attorney of his choosing. On November 11, 2022, Appellant resigned, contending that he had no choice because of the hostile work environment.

Following his resignation, Appellant alleges that BCPS provided a negative reference to a prospective employer. A BCPS Director, Dr. Monica Hetrick, contacted Appellant regarding a career opportunity within BCPS' Office of Performance Management. Appellant alleges that Dr. Hetrick agreed to call Ms. Myers, "but she never reached back with an update." Appellant indicated that he also applied for a data analyst position with Baltimore City Public Schools in its Office of Human Capital. Appellant, after the interview process, was notified by that office that he was not "a fit for the role[.]"

On April 19, 2023, Appellant filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which was amended on May 22 2023, and July 11, 2023. Appellee did not file an answer to the amended...