Thornton v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corretional Servs.

SHERON THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETYAND CORRETIONAL SERVICES. Defendant.

Civil Action No. ELH-16-3028

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

August 18, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sheron Thornton has filed an employment discrimination case against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS" or "Department").¹ In her Second Amended Complaint (ECF 11), plaintiff asserts claims against DPSCS for race discrimination (Count I) and sex discrimination (Count II), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") (ECF 11, ¶¶ 100-117); age discrimination (Count III), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. ("ADEA") (ECF 11, ¶¶ 118-127); and retaliation (Count IV), in violation of the ADEA and Title VII. Id. ¶¶ 128-150. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, $950,000 in compensatory damages; $950,000 in punitive damages; attorney's fees; and costs. Id. at 17-18.

The Department has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 20. The motion to dismiss is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 20-1) (collectively, "Motion") and an exhibit. ECF 20-2 (June 2, 2016, Charge of Discrimination) ("Charge"). The Department argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's race, sex, and age discrimination claims because plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the relevant statutes. ECF 20-1 at 9-14. In addition, defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for retaliation. Id. at 14-22. Thornton opposes the Motion (ECF 25-2) ("Opposition), supported by an exhibit. ECF 25-3.² The Department has replied. ECF 29 ("Reply").

The Motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the motion as to counts I, II, and III and deny it as to Count IV.

I. Factual Background³

Thornton began working for the Department in October 1997. ECF 11, ¶ 13. In 2009, she was promoted to "Acting Field Supervisor I (Grade 17)." Id. ¶ 19. She received satisfactory performance evaluations from 2010 through 2016. Id. ¶ 17.

Thornton claims that in February 2010, she was "assaulted by her female Field Supervisor." Id. ¶ 20. As a result, Thornton filed a charge of assault and sexual harassment with "Regional Administrator Brown." Id. ¶ 21. However, "Brown failed to file Plaintiff's complaintwith EEO [sic] or request an investigation." Id. ¶ 22.⁴ Thornton also "filed criminal charges, as well as, charges with [the] EEOC [(Charge No. 531-2010-892C)] and the agency's internal EEO . . . office", alleging sexual harassment and assault. Id. ¶ 23.⁵ In April 2010, the EEOC "issued a probable cause finding of gender discrimination" (id. ¶ 24), and the Department moved plaintiff to another office. Id. ¶ 25.

In May 2010, the Department allegedly denied plaintiff training opportunities and denied her request to work secondary employment. Id. ¶ 26. And, in June 2010, plaintiff was given "a counseling letter . . . for opposing discriminatory behavior." Id. ¶ 27.

A year later, in May 2011, Thornton filed a complaint with the EEO alleging harassment, denial of transfer, denial of promotional opportunity, and denial of secondary employment. Id. ¶ 28. According to plaintiff, in July 2011 the Department's EEO director "advised Plaintiff to 'just shut up,' 'demote yourself,' and 'go back to being an agent.'" Id. ¶ 29.

Plaintiff claims that between July 2011 and November 2012, she interviewed for ten positions within the Department. Id. ¶ 32. But, all of the positions were given to "employees outside of Plaintiff's protected classes of race and gender." Id.

In February 2012, Thornton filed a second charge with the EEOC (Charge No. 531-2012-365), alleging retaliation, harassment, and age discrimination. Id. ¶ 33.⁶ In January 2013,Thornton and the Department reached a settlement with respect to the two pending EEOC charges (Nos. 531-2010-892C and 531-2012-366), and those charges were dismissed. Id. ¶ 36; see also ECF 20-1 at 4 (explaining that the charges were dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement). As part of the settlement, Thornton was promoted to "Facility Administrator (Grade 21)." ECF 11, ¶ 37. She was also transferred to the Department's Pretrial Services unit in Baltimore. Id. ¶ 39.

Plaintiff states that between June and August 2013, she received disparate "treatment, constant belittlement, and profanity laced insults from the other administrators because of her protected actions." Id. ¶ 43. In August 2013, she was reassigned to work with Assistant Warden Campbell, even though "everyone else on the team was being supervised by Warden Foxwell." Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff was also issued a reprimand in August 2013. Id. ¶ 42. She filed a grievance and was allegedly told by an unidentified person, "'as long as you stay off that e-mail . . . you will be fine.'" Id. According to plaintiff, that person was referring to plaintiff's conduct of informing others about the harassment. Id.

Around May 2014, Thornton requested a transfer "back to Parole and Probation". Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff alleges that, because of this request, she was "subjected to alienation, exclusion from executive meetings and email distributions, as well as, receiving lower evaluation scores." Id. Then, in July 2014, she "was placed in an office where urine and feces leaked from the segregation cells above . . . ." Id. ¶ 46.

According to Thornton, in October 2014 she was "compelled" to agree to a thirty day suspension, without pay. Id. ¶ 47. She states that she resigned rather than accept the suspension. Id. Plaintiff then filed a third charge with the EEOC (Charge No. 531-2015-262), claimingretaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. Id. ¶ 48. Thornton received a right to sue letter in December 2014.

"In December 2014, plaintiff, under duress, fraud and coercion, was directed to sign a settlement agreement that demoted her, decreased her pay, waived her rights to appeal, and directed her to resign again." Id. ¶ 50. Thornton claims that "Director Miller" told her that she would not be reinstated because she had contacted representatives for help. Id. ¶ 51. And, in March 2015, Thornton was told "to remove her name from the reinstatement list for Field Supervisor I position, if she wanted to be reinstated for state service." Id. ¶ 53.

In March 2015, Thornton was transferred to the Department's office in Westminster, Maryland, which is "78 miles roundtrip" from Baltimore. Id. ¶ 54. At that office, one of Thornton's supervisors, whom she refers to as "Hubble", stated, "in response to Plaintiff's statement that she and another Black colleague were going into the field, 'Oh God, now I have to watch two Black girls.'" Id. ¶ 56.

Thornton was issued a "counseling record" in June 2015, for being "'profane and insolent' to an offender and disrespectful to the cleaning man." Id. ¶ 59. She claims that those allegations were untrue. Id. Plaintiff then filed an EEO complaint, citing harassment, retaliation, unfair practices, and race discrimination. Id. ¶ 60. Thereafter, in July 2015, Thornton was issued a "Level 1 reprimand" for various incidents. Id. ¶ 61. But, she claims that she was not even present in the office during one of the alleged incidents. Id. Plaintiff filed an additional harassment charge with the EEO in August 2015. Id. ¶ 63.

In August 2015, despite being on the "best qualified list", plaintiff was denied the privilege to interview for a Field Supervisor I position. Id. ¶ 64. In September 2015, plaintiff was denied a position with the "drug court", which she claims went to an individual with lessexperience. Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff then filed another EEO charge, claiming discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Id. ¶ 66,

On November 3, 2015, Thornton's supervisors told her that they were rescinding her reprimand and replacing it with counseling. Id. ¶ 70. Also in November 2015, plaintiff received "a concerns memorandum" after plaintiff told her supervisor about inaccuracies in her completion of an audit. Id. ¶ 74.⁷

In February 2016, Thornton was denied a transfer to Baltimore City. Id. ¶ 75. In March 2016, Thornton applied for the position of Regional Administrator, but was told that she lacked the experience or credentials. Id. ¶ 78. And, in April 2016, plaintiff applied for the position of "Correctional Hearing Officer", but was told that she did not have the requisite experience. Id. ¶ 79. However, Thornton disputes the claim that she lacked the qualifications for the Correctional Hearing Officer position. Id.

Thornton filed a fourth charge of discrimination with the EEOC on June 2, 2016 (Charge No. 531-2016-1551). Id. ¶ 82; see ECF 20-2. On the section of the Charge captioned "DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es)", plaintiff checked only the box for "RETALIATION". See ECF 20-2 (capitals in original). She did not check the boxes for "RACE"; "COLOR"; "SEX"; or "AGE". See id. Furthermore, in the section of the Charge captioned "DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE", plaintiff stated that the earliest date of discrimination occurred on November 17, 2015, and the last date of discrimination took place on March 1, 2016. See id. Of import here, Thornton did not check the box next to "CONTINUING ACTION". See id. And, in the description section of the Charge, plaintiff wrote, id.:

I. I began my employment with the above listed Respondent in October 1997. My current position is Field Supervisor I. I am under the direct supervision of Kimble Hubble. During the course of my employment, I have filed EEOC Charge(s): 531-2010-00892, 531-2012-00365, and 531-2015-00262. As a result, I believe I have been subjected to harassment, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and disciplinary action in retaliation

...