Jones v Administrative Office of the Courts, Maryland Judiciary
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 3/16/2016. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RICKEY NELSON JONES
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS, MARYLAND JUDICIARY
: CIVIL NO. CCB-15-3336
In 2014 the plaintiff, Rickey Nelson Jones (“Jones”), an African-American attorney,
applied for a position on the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. He was not recommended to
then Governor Martin O’Malley by the Judicial Nominating Commission for District 7, and he
was not appointed by the Governor. He filed suit for racial discrimination in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), naming the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) as
a defendant. Subsequently, he sought to amend his complaint to add the Court of Appeals of
Maryland as an additional defendant. The State has moved to dismiss and has opposed the
amendment. The issues have been fully briefed, and no oral argument is necessary. See Local
R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014).
Even assuming Jones were able to identify the correct defendant, his claim must fail
because the position he seeks is not protected by Title VII. The statute permits an “employee” to
sue his “employer,” but exempts from coverage “ any person elected to public office in any
State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or  any person
chosen by such officer to be . . . an appointee on the policy making level.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
A Circuit Court judge in Maryland initially is appointed by an elected official, the governor, to a
position “on the policy making level.” See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 467 (1991)
(holding Missouri state judges are appointees on the policy making level); Birch v. Cuyahoga
Cty. Probate Court, 392 F.3d 151, 160 (6th Cir. 2004); Burgess v. City of Lake City, 2013 WL
4056315, at * 2 (D.S.C. 2013). The exemption does not include employees “subject to the civil
service laws of a State government,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f), but Maryland Circuit Court judges
are not subject to the State’s civil service laws. Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. § 6-301(2);
see also Williams v. Anderson, 753 F. Supp. 1306, 1310–11 (D. Md. 1990).1
Accordingly, it is not necessary to discuss the particular facts of the application process,
or to compare Jones’s qualifications with those of other candidates. This court does not dispute
the importance of diversity on the bench, but Jones is not entitled to the relief he seeks.
A separate Order follows.
March 16, 2016
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge
To the extent Mr. Jones’s claim relies on the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), Md. Code Ann.,
State Gov’t § 20-601 et seq., that argument also falls short. MFEPA, like Title VII, exempts from coverage elected
officials and appointees on the policy making level. Id. § 20-601(c)(2).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?