Parker v. University of Maryland Medical Center Midtown Campus

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 11/14/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
~

=
JOYCE A PARKER

v.
MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL

*
*
*
*
*
*

CT_
(
::

Civil No. - JFM-16-1419

******

.•1
"

-:-:-..
-,

-.

..,';~
,.-

-

c.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has brought this action against her fonner employer, the University of Maryland
Medical Center Midtown Campus. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. Defendant has
moved to dismiss that complaint. The motion will be granted.l
Plaintiff asserts claims for (I) wrongful discharge in retaliation for having filed a
workcrs' compensation claim; (2) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (3)
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in retaliation for having filed a workers'
compensation claim fails because of the lack of temporal proximity between the time of her
filing of her claim and her discharge. She filed her workers' compensation claim in June 2012.
Her employment was terminated more than a year later in July 2013. The gap between filing her
complaint and her discharge is simply too long. See Perry v. Kappas, 489 F. App'x 637, 643
(4th Cif. 2012); Wallace v. Mmyland, Civil No. CCB-14-276, 2014 WL 2175275, @*5 (D. Md.
May 23, 2014).

1 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her amended complaint. Her request will be denied. She has
proffered nothing that would change the rulings made in this memorandum opinion.

Plaintiffs ADA claim fails because she has not alleged any facts that "but for" her
disability, she would not have been discharged. Indeed, she alleges that defendant was
conducting significant layoffs beginning in June 2013, which affected the billing department
where she worked. Moreover, plaintiff cannot establish that she is a qualified individual with a
disability. She alleges that "[d)uring all relevant times of the Complaint Plaintiff could not stand
for a continuous length of time." She alleges that her job required sitting for significant lengths
of time during the work day. She has not alleged that defendant refused her any accommodation.
Plaintiffs claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act fails because she does
not allege any facts other than her age (55) to establish a violation. Although she does allege that
two other billing specialists who were younger than she were not terminated, she does not allege
the ages of these other employees, that she was performing at the same level as they, or that they
had the same supervisor and job duties as did she.
A separate order granting defendant's motion to dismiss is being entered herewith.

Date:

II})

"1/ /tl

~vn
J. rederick Motz
nited States District Judge