Murphy v. Adams

ANTOINETTE MURPHY v. SHIRLEY ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 22 50, ET AL.

Civil Action No. DKC 12-1975

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

August 4, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination case is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Shirley Adams, President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 2250, and the Executive Board of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 2250 ("AFSCME 2250"). (ECF No. 59). Also pending are the third motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Antoinette Murphy (ECF No. 60), the amended motion for extension of time filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 63), and the motion to strike filed by Defendants (ECF No. 69). The issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion to compel will be denied. The motion for an extension of time will be granted, but the motionto strike will be denied. The motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background¹

Plaintiff was a bus driver for Prince George's County public schools. She was a member of Defendant AFSCME 2250, of which Defendant Adams is the President. AFSCME 2250 is Plaintiff's collective bargaining agent and is designated to file grievances on her behalf. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Bernard Palmer, an employee of the school system and Plaintiff's supervisor, subjected Plaintiff to quid pro quo sexual harassment. Specifically, Mr. Palmer forced Plaintiff to meet with him on a daily basis throughout the course of his supervision to control and intimidate her and threatened Plaintiff with termination if she did not give in to his sexual advances. He reprimanded her and pulled her off assignments. Mr. Palmer would tell other men on the job that he wanted to have sex with Plaintiff. Plaintiff informed Mr. Faith Jones, President of AFSCME 2250, about Mr. Palmer's behavior.² On September 24, 2009, Mr. Jones told Plaintiff that "if she gavehim what he wanted, then Mr. Palmer would be putty in her hands." Mr. Jones laughed and told Plaintiff to just "give him some." (ECF No. 2 ¶ 14; ECF No. 59-3, letter from Plaintiff to Mr. Richard Putney, AFSCME 2250's Executive Director). That same day, Plaintiff had a meeting with Mr. Putney and Ms. Adams to discuss a variety of complaints, including her foremen not giving her proper work, her coworkers constantly lying to her, and the harassment she was experiencing. (ECF No. 59-2, at 19-20, Trans. 114:19 - 115:8, Plaintiff Dep.). Plaintiff stated that she did not characterize Mr. Palmer's behavior as sexual, only that he constantly wanted to be with her in an abnormal manner that made her feel very uncomfortable and constituted harassment in her mind. (Id. at 21, Trans. 116:1-9). Mr. Putney stated that Plaintiff needed to file harassment charges and Ms. Angela Thomas (an employee of AFSCME 2250) needed to get the paperwork ready. Plaintiff was unsure exactly what the union was planning to do, however. She told Mr. Putney "to file a harassment"; she did not ask him to file a sexual harassment grievance, and Mr. Putney did not indicate he was going to file such a grievance. Plaintiff states that AFSCME 2250 would not take or file a grievance on Plaintiff's behalf. The school system and AFSCME were in concert and the intentional discrimination resulted in many adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including suspension without pay, verbalreprimand, consistently poor evaluations, and training that consisted of sitting in Mr. Palmer's division all day and reading a manual.

On January 12, 2010, Plaintiff, attempting to get help from her union, explained to Mr. Jones that she had been sent home unfairly by Mr. Palmer before she started her run. Mr. Jones laughed and told her that she needed to calm down. Plaintiff responded that she was tired of the constant harassment from her supervisors and that the union needed to step in and properly represent her. Mr. Jones then told Plaintiff that "I told you Palmer likes you, just give it to him and it will stop." Plaintiff responded that she was not kidding. Mr. Jones responded that he was not kidding. Later that day, Mr. Jones kept suggesting "that I [Plaintiff] give into Mr. Palmer and just fix him up. This will all go away." (ECF No. 59-3, at 2).

Plaintiff states that she would call AFSCME 2250 whenever Mr. Palmer wanted to meet with her alone. She states that Ms. Thomas and Mr. James Spears would tell her just to go ahead and meet with him alone, and whatever he gives you or whatever he tells you, then bring that back to the union and they will deal with it. (ECF No. 66-2, at 13-14, Trans. 252:13 - 253:18). At some point AFSCME 2250 informed Plaintiff that it would not file a grievance on behalf of Plaintiff in regard to Mr. Jones's comments. Ms. Wanda Newman and Ms. Shirley Breeze, members ofthe union's executive board, were given responsibility for the matter, but told Plaintiff that they did not know how to approach this matter. (Id. at 16-17, Trans. 281:1 - 282:4)

On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Adams, AFSCME 2250, and the Board of Education of Prince George's County. The complaint contains a claim of "Sexual Harassment - Hostile Work Environment - Retaliation" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to take action following Plaintiff's numerous complaints. The second count of her complaint alleges "Sexual Harassment - Vicarious Liability" in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Palmer would not have taken the tangible employment actions against her had Defendants interceded on her behalf. Defendants Adams and AFSCME 2250 filed a motion to dismiss, which this court denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order on January 31, 2013. (ECF Nos. 14 and 15). Defendant Board of Education of Prince George's County filed a motion to dismiss for improper service, which was granted on March 1, 2013. (ECF Nos. 25 and 26). On January 17, 2014, after a period of discovery, Defendants Adams and AFSCME 2250 filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59). A response was due by February 3, 2014. On February 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time. That motion was denied without prejudicesubject to renewal for failure to comply with Local Rule 105.9. On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff renewed her motion for an extension of time to file her response to March 1, 2014. (ECF No. 63). Defendants opposed this motion on March 10, 2014. (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion on March 1, 2014. (ECF No. 65). Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's opposition on March 14, 2014. (ECF No. 69). Plaintiff responded on April 1, 2014 (ECF No. 72), and Defendants replied on April 18, 2014 (ECF No. 76). Plaintiff filed a motion to compel depositions on February 2, 2014. (ECF No. 60). Defendants responded on February 21, 2014. (ECF No. 64).

II. Analysis

A. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce witnesses for depositions and to impose sanctions on Defendants. Discovery in this case was originally scheduled to close on July 15, 2013. Plaintiff requested an extension which was granted, setting the new deadline at September 5, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce an investigative report prepared by Defendants' counsel concerning Plaintiff's allegations and filed a second motion to extend discovery to allow her to depose certain individuals that she learned about from documents Defendants produced. Following a telephoneconference, the court ordered the parties to consult on the documents Plaintiff desires and, if the documents concern matters at issue in this case, then the depositions of James Spears and Angela Thomas will be conducted, limited to inquiry about those documents. Furthermore, a hearing was scheduled to resolve whether Plaintiff was entitled to the investigative report. (ECF No. 53). The Defendants subsequently agreed to produce the investigative report, rendering the hearing unnecessary. Defendants represent that they conferred with Plaintiff about the need for depositions of Ms. Thomas or Mr. Spears, but could not come to an agreement. Plaintiff has never noted these depositions. Only after Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment did Plaintiff file this motion to compel. Plaintiff argues that now that the report has been produced, she needs to depose some union members mentioned in the report in order to obtain discoverable evidence concerning Plaintiff's request for aid from ASCFME 2250.

Plaintiff's motion will be denied. She fails to identify who she needs to depose or why she only learned of their identities now, given that she had previously seen a copy of the investigation. If Plaintiff seeks to depose Ms. Thomas or Mr. Spears, she certainly knew of their identities, as evidenced by her September 2013 deposition. (See ECF No. 66-2, at 13, Trans. 252:11-19). Plaintiff also does not explain the months-longdelay in filing a motion to compel once the report was produced or why she failed to notice any depositions. Her motion to compel and to impose sanctions will be denied.

B. Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file her opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Her first request was filed within the deadline for filing her opposition, but it was denied without prejudice subject to renewal. Seventeen days later, Plaintiff filed her renewed motion, stating that her counsel had a trial that was originally scheduled for September 30, 2013 pushed back to January 10, 2014. This case, combined with Plaintiff's counsel's additional case load and the...