Whitaker v. Md. Transit Admin.

ERIC WHITAKER, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. ELH-17-00584

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

February 14, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Eric Whitaker has filed suit against a host of defendants: his employer, the Maryland Transit Administration ("MTA"); Paul Comfort, individually and in his official capacity as the MTA Administrator;¹ as well as Richard Simmons, Robert Gilman, Richard Stelmack, Keith Stewart, and Eric Bowser, individually and in their official capacities as plaintiff's supervisors at the MTA. ECF 1 ("Complaint").²

The Complaint contains five counts against all defendants. In Count One, plaintiff asserts a claim of race discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Count Two asserts claims of retaliation under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), codified, as amended, at 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.³ Count Three alleges hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified, as amended, at 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the "Equal Pay Act" in Count Four, based on his race. Because plaintiff does not provide a statutory citation, it is unclear whether this claim is raised under federal or Maryland law. Count Five asserts a claim under Maryland law for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").⁴ Plaintiff submits many exhibits with his Complaint. See ECF 1-1 through ECF 1-20.

Defendants have filed a prediscovery motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF 21), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 21-1) (collectively, "Motion") and multiple exhibits. See ECF 21-3 through ECF 21-10. Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 22) and has submitted a memorandum of law (ECF 22-1) (collectively, "Opposition") and various exhibits. See ECF 22-2 through 22-8. Defendants have replied (ECF 23, "Reply) and have submitted an additional exhibit. See ECF 23-1.

The Motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. I shall construe the Motion as one to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, I conclude that plaintiff's claims under the ADEA (Counts Two and Three) are barred by sovereign immunity. Under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff may not proceed against Comfort, Simmons, Gilman, Stelmack, Stewart, and Bowser in their individual capacities (Counts One, Two, Three, and Four). Plaintiff's Title VII claims for race discrimination (Counts One and Four) and hostile work environment (Count Three) are subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Moreover, I am satisfied that plaintiff has abandoned his "Equal Pay Act" claim (Count Four). Further, with respect to plaintiff's claim of hostile work environment under the Rehabilitation Act (Count Three) and the claim of IIED (Count Five), plaintiff has failed to state a claim. As to the claim of retaliation under Title VII against the MTA and the individual defendants in their official capacities (Count Two), I shall deny the Motion as to the MTA, Comfort, Simmons, and Bowser, but grant it as to Gilman, Stelmack, and Stewart.

I. Factual and Procedural Background⁵

A.

Plaintiff is African-American. ECF 1, ¶ 78. It appears that he was 57 years of age when he filed suit. See ECF 1-5. Whitaker began working for the MTA on April 3, 1989, as a Bus Mechanic. ECF 1, ¶ 22. At some point in 2001, plaintiff became an "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanic," the position he held when suit was filed. Id. ¶¶ 4, 22, 65. Plaintiff does not detail the job duties of an "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanic." However, he claims that he has "experienced disparate treatment in work distributions, advancement opportunities and training programs" since 1989. ECF 1, ¶ 23.⁶

The MTA is part of the Maryland Department of Transportation. ECF 1, ¶ 20.⁷ It employs approximately 3,200 individuals. Id.

When plaintiff filed suit, Comfort served as the Administrator of the MTA, and Simmons, Gilman, Stelmack, Stewart, and Bowser were management employees of the MTA. Id. ¶¶ 7-12. Stelmack appears to have been plaintiff's first supervisor in the MTA's Bus Facilities Maintenance Department, where plaintiff worked as an "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanic" from an unspecified date in 2001 until October 27, 2014. See ECF 1 ¶¶ 24, 29-30, 65-67. Simmons appears to have been plaintiff's second supervisor in the Bus Facilities Maintenance Department. ECF 1, ¶¶ 65-67. He supervised plaintiff on October 27, 2014, when plaintiff was preparing to transfer from the Bus Facilities Maintenance Department to the Metro Facilities Maintenance Department. Id. Upon transfer, Bowser became plaintiff's supervisor in the Metro Facilities Maintenance Department. Id. ¶ 67. Gilman managed the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") Technicians in the Metro Facilities Maintenance Department. Id. ¶ 32. A "few years" after plaintiff began working under Stelmack in the Bus Facilities Maintenance Department in 2001, plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for an HVAC Technician position supervised by Gilman. Id. ¶¶ 32-37. Although Stewart is named as a defendant, plaintiff alleges no facts that pertain to him. See ECF 1.

Plaintiff is a member of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1300 ("Union"), which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with the MTA. Id. ¶ 21. Among other things, the CBA governs the rate of pay for MTA employees. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that the MTA has not compensated him "in accordance with the terms of the CBA." ECF 1, ¶ 54. He contends that he is a certified welder and that "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanics" who are "certified welders" are entitled to "skilled trades pay," pursuant to the CBA. Id. ¶¶ 54, 57, 58, 61.

B.

According to plaintiff, in 2001 there were two "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanic" positions open in the Bus Facilities Maintenance Department, and he "submitted a bid" for the position in September 2001. Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that he was the most senior, qualified MTA applicant, and the CBA requires the MTA to fill vacant positions with the most senior, qualified employee applicant. Id. ¶ 25. Nevertheless, both positions were filled by Caucasian applicants with less seniority. Id. At an unspecified date, plaintiff filed a grievance with the Union and was thereafter awarded one of the vacant "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanic" positions in the Bus Facilities Maintenance Department. Id. ¶ 26.

Stelmack became plaintiff's supervisor in 2001, when plaintiff began working as an A" Repairman Electro-Mechanic in the Bus Facilities Maintenance Department. Id. ¶¶ 24-26, 29. Stelmack allegedly told plaintiff that he "would assign Plaintiff the nastiest and dirtiest jobs to break his spirit . . . ." Id. ¶ 30.

At an unspecified date, a "few years" after plaintiff became an "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanic" in 2001, Whitaker applied for a vacant HVAC Technician position in the Metro Facilities Maintenance Department. Id. ¶¶ 24, 32. Gilman was the "Facilities Maintenance manager" at that time. Id. ¶ 32. Whitaker alleges that Gilman told plaintiff that he "would do everything in his power to keep Plaintiff from getting the HVAC technician position because Mr. Gilman was in the process of training his son (Caucasian) for the position." Id.

The HVAC Technician position required an applicant to pass "a test." Id. ¶ 33. Although plaintiff took the test, he claims that unnamed MTA supervisors and managers "deliberately and maliciously withheld Plaintiff's test results." Id. Plaintiff complained to Brian Williams, MTA's Director of Labor and Employee Relations, that his test results were being withheld ("Williams Complaint"). Id. ¶ 34. Then, the "MTA rescinded the HVAC technician vacancy", in retaliation for plaintiff lodging the Williams Complaint. Id. ¶ 35. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that, "at the request of Mr. Gilman," and in retaliation for the Williams Complaint, the requirements for the HVAC Technician position were altered to render plaintiff ineligible for that position. Id. ¶ 36. He also states that MTA "management made attempts to help Mr. Gilman's son" obtain the "new qualifications." Id. ¶ 37.

Plaintiff asserts that, on an unspecified date, MTA management "mark[ed] up his clean personnel record by falsely alleging that Plaintiff disobeyed direct orders." ECF 1, ¶ 39. In particular, plaintiff avers that an unidentified "supervisor" threatened to take plaintiff "out of service" for his refusal to drive an MTA "service vehicle" that "failed to meet the State of Maryland's safety standards." Id. ¶ 40. Additionally, plaintiff asserts that, on an unspecified date, an unidentified "supervisor" denied plaintiff's "requested vacation day", in violation of "MTA seniority policy." Id. ¶ 41. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that, at an unspecified time, an unnamed "supervisor" required plaintiff to "perform work" that similarly situated Caucasian "'A' Repairman Electro-Mechanics" "were not ordered to perform." Id. ¶ 42.

C.

Whitaker claims that he filed a "racial discrimination complaint" in October 2011 in the MTA Office of Fair Practice ("MTA Complaint"). ECF 1, ¶ 43. Plaintiff does not specify the allegations. According to plaintiff, MTA "management" retaliated against plaintiff for the MTA Complaint by "installing a window in Plaintiff's office." Id. ¶ 44. Whitaker does not identify the MTA "management." But, he states that after he "covered the window for privacy," he was required to "remove the cover" by MTA management. Id. ¶ 45. In contrast, MTA management allowed a Caucasian coworker to paint his own window black. Id. ¶ 46.

In June 2012, plaintiff filed a Charge of race discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights against the MTA ("2012 Charg...