Bird v. Marine Terminals Corporation-East et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING 40 Motion of International Longshoreman's Association - Local 333 for Summary Judgment; GRANTING 41 Motion of MTCE for Summary Judgment; Entering Judgment in favor of defendants against plaintiff. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 3/23/2020. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RONALD BIRD,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

MARINE TERMINALS
CORPORATION-EAST, and
INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN’S
ASSOCIATION LOCAL 333

*
*
*

Defendants.
*

*

*

Case No. RDB-18-1315

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Plaintiff Ronald Bird originally filed this action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., against his employer Marine Terminals
Corporation-East (“MTCE”) and his union, International Longshoremen’s Association Local
333 (“Local 333”). These allegations are based on Bird’s employment with MTCE from 2011
to 2015 and his contention that he was improperly denied a position as a “Spotter” in directing
vehicles and roll-off cargo.
The Defendants both filed Motions for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2019. (ECF
Nos. 40, 41), denying Bird’s claims and contending that they are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The lawyers who
previously represented the Plaintiff withdrew their representation and he has proceeded pro se
since June of 2019.

On August 16, 2019, the Clerk of this Court provided notice to Mr. Bird as a pro se
Plaintiff of the filing of these subject motions and his right to file a timely response. (ECF
No. 42.) No response has been filed. This Court has reviewed the subject motions (ECF
Nos. 40, 41). With respect to the Defendant employer MTCE, the Plaintiff’s disparate
treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims fail as a matter of law and MTCE’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED and judgment is entered in favor
of MTCE and against the Plaintiff. With respect to the Defendant union Local 333, these
same claims fail as a matter of law and Local 333’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
40) is GRANTED and judgment is entered in favor of Local 333 and against the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2020, that
the Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 40, 41) are GRANTED and the Clerk of this
Court SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE.

___/s/_________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

2