Prince George's Cnty. Mem'l Library Sys. v. Naftal

1

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY MEMORIAL LIBRARY SYSTEM v. JEFFREY NAFTAL

No. 1262-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

November 8, 2023

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No.: CAL19-26429

Arthur, Albright, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

HARRELL J.

A jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County found that the Prince George's County Memorial Library System ("the Library"), appellant, terminated unlawfully Jeffrey Naftal, appellee, because of his age, race, and gender. Naftal's case relied primarily on evidence that the Library treated other employees outside his protected classes ("comparators") more favorably despite comparable misconduct. On appeal, the Library contends that this evidence was inadmissible and, in any event, insufficient as a matter of law because Naftal's comparators were not similarly situated to him. In the alternative, the Library contends that the trial court erred by not giving its requested instruction on the relevancy of this evidence.

We conclude that the Library waived its objection to the admissibility of Naftal's comparator evidence. Nevertheless, we find that three of Naftal's four comparators were improper as a matter of law and that the evidence was therefore insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. We conclude also that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the Library's requested jury instruction. Therefore, we vacate the judgment in this case and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

The Library System

The Library is a quasi-independent agency of the Prince George's County government. See Md. Code. Ann Educ. ("Educ.") § 23-401(a). Through its 19 branches, the Library serves nearly a million visitors every year-providing the community with books, computers, and internet access, together with reading programs for children. The Library is governed by an appointed volunteer Board of Trustees ("the Board"). See Educ. § 23-401(b).

The Board is responsible for establishing policies relating to employees' classification, salaries, work conditions, and discipline. Educ. § 23-406(b). The Board selects and appoints also a Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") to serve at the Board's pleasure. Educ. § 23-406(a)(1), (f).

Certain aspects of Library employment are regulated by statute. For example, the CEO, or his/her/their designee, may suspend any Library employee without pay for up to 10 working days, but only for these reasons: (1) misconduct in office; (2) insubordination; (3) incompetency; or (4) willful neglect of duty. Educ. § 23-406(d)(1). The CEO need not consult the Board before suspending an employee, but he/she/they must "give the suspended employee a written statement that specifies the reasons for the suspension" and place a copy in the employee's official personnel file. Educ. § 23-406(d)(2). The employee may reply, in writing within 10 working days after receiving notice of the suspension, to the CEO and may request also a hearing before the Board. Educ. § 23-406(d)(3).

The process to terminate Library employees is similar, except that the CEO may not terminate unilaterally an employee. Instead, the CEO submits a written recommendation to the Board, and the Board determines whether termination is warranted. Educ. § 23-406(e)(1). The Board may terminate an employee for only the same four reasons as above. Id. The CEO is required to "send the employee a written copy of the charges against [him/her/them] and give the employee an opportunity to request a hearing before the [B]oard within 10 working days." Educ. § 23-406(e)(2). If the Board votes unanimously to remove the employee, its decision is final. Educ. § 23-406(e)(3)(i). If "[t]he decision is not unanimous, the employee may appeal to the State Library Board through the State Librarian." Educ. § 23-406(e)(3)(ii).

Many Library employees are members of the Municipal &County Government Employees Organization Local 1994, a union that has a collective bargaining agreement with the Library. The collective bargaining agreement provides union members with additional rights and protections beyond the statutory ones noted above, including requiring progressive discipline before any termination. Executive Team members, such as the CEO, COO and CFO, are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. That said, the Library uses the same disciplinary process for both union and nonunion employees. The Board engages in all terminations, regardless of union membership.

Naftal's Employment

The Library hired Naftal-a White male, over 50 years of age-in 2016 to serve as its Director of Human Resources. This was an Executive Team position and reported directly to the CEO. At the time, the CEO was Kathleen Teaze. As HR Director, Naftal was the primary contact for all employee relations. Among other things, he: advised midlevel Library supervisors on Library policies and procedures, such as progressive discipline; negotiated with the union; and, conducted investigations under the Library's harassment policy. While reporting to Teaze, several incidents occurred that resulted in complaints about Naftal's performance. Despite these incidents, however, Naftal received no formal warnings, reprimands, or counseling.

When Teaze resigned in 2017, Naftal reported to interim co-CEOs Michelle Hamiel and Michael Gannon while the Board searched for a permanent replacement CEO. Finally, in 2019, the Board hired Roberta Phillips as CEO, and Naftal began reporting to her. Phillips was hired to change the Library's culture away from a perceived disciplinarian and adversarial approach towards employees. She met individually with Naftal just five times, but they both attended several large and small group meetings together. Phillips never reprimanded Naftal in writing about his performance, but, in their one-on-one meetings, she expressed that she was dissatisfied with his punitive language and continued adversarial approach towards staff. Phillips did not believe Naftal could change his behavior. So less than three months after her start date, Phillips recommended his termination to the Board.

In the required written notice, Phillips identified the grounds for Naftal's termination as incompetence and willful neglect of duty. She specified four job duties he neglected:

• Creates a welcoming environment, maintains effective relationships and uses all available resources to assist customers (human resource customers are the staff);

• Empowers staff; fosters collaboration, support for new ideas, encourages innovations, allows staff to learn from mistakes in non-punitive settings;

• Strong communication; and

• Acts as an ambassador and advocate for the library.

Naftal appealed his termination, alleging that the Library was discriminating against him because of his race, age, and sex. Prior to the hearing, the Board requested from Phillips relevant documents relating to the statements in Naftal's appeal letter, including additional details supporting the reasons for termination and the personnel files of Naftal's alleged comparators. Phillips provided the requested documents and a supplemental letter detailing 15 examples supporting her stated grounds for termination. She concluded the letter with: "Whether characterized as incompetency, willful neglect of duty, or insubordination, the criteria for termination have been met and this remains the CEO's recommendation."

The Board held a hearing on 30 May 2019. The hearing focused primarily on Naftal's competence and job performance before Phillips's tenure as CEO. Naftal presented no evidence of race, sex, or age discrimination. The Board voted unanimously to terminate Naftal.

Naftal was replaced initially as HR Director by Andi Sponaugle, a White female, over 60. When she retired soon after her appointment, the position was rebranded as the Director of Talent &Culture and filled by Aishar Pinnock, a Black female, under 40.

Circuit Court Proceedings

After exhausting his administrative remedies with the Prince George's County Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Naftal sued the Library in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, alleging he was fired because of his race, sex, or age. As evidence of the Library's alleged discrimination, Naftal pointed to other Library employees who he alleged were treated more favorably than he was despite comparable misconduct, all of whom were outside at least one of his protected class categories. After discovery, the Library moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Naftal's proposed comparators were not "similarly situated," which foreclosed an inference of discrimination. The circuit court denied this motion without explanation. The Library moved in limine to exclude evidence of three of Naftal's proposed comparators as irrelevant on the same grounds-i.e., they were not similarly situated. The court heard arguments on this motion just before trial and denied it. Then, at the close of Naftal's casein-chief, the Library moved for a directed verdict on the same grounds-that Naftal's comparators were not similarly situated. The court heard arguments on the motion and denied it. The Library renewed its motion at the close of evidence, which the court denied, without additional argument.

Before submitting the case to the jury, the Library requested that the court issue a non-pattern instruction on the relevance of comparator evidence:

The similarity between comparators must be clearly established in order to be meaningful. To be relevant, a comparator must be both similarly situated and outside of the Plaintiff's protected class. Plaintiff must show that . . . he and

...