Phillips v. University of Maryland Baltimore County et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Elmer Falconer (Director of Human Resources), Christopher Murphy (Professor), Amy Schneider Business Manager), Valerie Thomas (Vice President of Human Resources), Linda Baker (Professor) and Eva Dominguez (Assistant Dean) terminated. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/15/2016. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

United States District Court
District Of Maryland
Chambers of
Ellen Lipton Hollander
District Court Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-0742

June 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
Re:

Monisha Phillips v. University of Maryland Baltimore County, et al.
Civil Action No. ELH-15-2066

Dear Counsel:
As you know, on July 15, 2015, Monisha Phillips, who was originally self-represented,
filed an employment discrimination suit against her employer, the University of Maryland
Baltimore County (“UMBC”), and six UMBC employees: Amy Schneider; Christopher Murphy;
Linda Baker; Eva Dominguez; Valerie Thomas; and Elmer Falconer (collectively the “Individual
Defendants”).
On May 5, 2016, the Individual Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
23), accompanied by a memorandum of law (ECF 23-1, collectively the “Motion”) and six
exhibits. ECF 23-2 through ECF 23-7. The Motion for Summary Judgment argues that “none of
the Individual Defendants are Ms. Phillips’ ‘employer’ under the meaning of Title VII, and
therefore none are liable to her under that statute.” ECF 23-1 at 1.
On May 19, 2016, plaintiff, who was then still self-represented, filed an “Extension
Request to Respond to Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment.” ECF 25 (the “Motion for
Extension”). By Order of May 20, 2016 (ECF 26), I granted the Motion for Extension (ECF 25),
and extended, until June 13, 2016, the time by which plaintiff could respond to the Motion (ECF
23). No response was filed.
In the meantime, on June 6, 2016, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of plaintiff.
ECF 27; ECF 28. On June 15, 2016, while I was preparing a memorandum to address the
unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 23), plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Stipulation
Pertaining to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” (the “Stipulation”). ECF 29. The
Stipulation provides, in relevant part, ECF 29 ¶ 3: “Counsel for Plaintiff stipulates that the
Individual Defendants do not constitute an ‘employer’ under Title VII and thereby cannot be
held liable under same.” In addition, the Stipulation provides: “Counsel for Plaintiff further
stipulates that Plaintiff’s claims brought against the Individual Defendants cannot succeed as a
matter of law.” Id. ¶ 4. Accordingly, “Counsel for Plaintiff respectfully stipulates that the
Individual Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to all counts of the Complaint.”
Id. at 2.

The Motion for Summary Judgment appears legally sound. In light of the Stipulation
(ECF 29), I shall GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 23.
Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the
Clerk is directed to docket it as such.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

-2-