Cole v. Hillside Family of Agencies, Inc. et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 7/28/2011. (c/m 7/29/11 ns)(nss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ARNOLD COLE
Plaintiff
v.
HILLSIDE FAMILY OF
AGENCIES, INC., et al.
Defendants
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil No.: PJM 10-3326
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Arnold Cole has sued his former employer, Hillside Family of Agencies, Inc.
(“Hillside”), and several Hillside employees, alleging: race discrimination, gender
discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; disability-based discrimination in
violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; violation of the Civil Service
Reform Act (“CSRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.; and race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981. For the reasons that follow, the Court will ENTER a Final Order of Judgment in
Defendants’ favor and direct the Clerk of the Court to CLOSE this case.
I.
On June 9, 2011, the Court issued an Opinion and Order [Paper Nos. 15 & 16] granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Paper No. 7], with prejudice, as to all but Count III (retaliation)
of Cole’s Complaint.1 The Court did so after concluding that the Complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to Count III, the Court granted the Motion
1
The Court’s Order also dismissed, with prejudice, all four of the individual Defendants named in Cole’s suit.
-1-
to Dismiss, but did so without prejudice to Cole’s right to file, within 20 days, an amended
complaint properly alleging his entitlement to relief on that count.
In Count III of the Complaint, Cole alleged that Defendants retaliated against him for
filing an internal complaint of discrimination with Hillside’s human resources department.
Problematic for Cole, however, was the fact that his allegation, as written, appeared to suggest
that he did not file his internal complaint of discrimination until after Hillside had terminated
him.2 Because Cole’s termination was, sequentially, the last materially adverse employment
action alleged in the Complaint, the Court concluded that Cole’s allegation, even if true, did not
establish the requisite causal link between protected activity and alleged adverse employment
action. See Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that a
prima facie case of unlawful retaliation includes, among other elements, “a causal link between
the protected activity and the employment action”). This was so, the Court held, because a
plaintiff cannot plausibly establish a causal link between protected activity and an adverse
employment action when he alleges that he did not engage in the protected activity (e.g., filing
an internal complaint) until after all of the alleged adverse employment actions (e.g., unpaid
work hours, denial of opportunities, termination, etc.) had already occurred.
The Court noted, however, that another document in the record—one which Defendants
had attached to their Motion to Dismiss—suggested that Cole may have actually filed his internal
complaint of discrimination four days before Hillside terminated him. Given this, the Court
concluded that, although Count III should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, it would be
proper—especially in light of Cole’s status as a pro se litigant—to give him a limited
2
Specifically, Cole’s Complaint stated: “On or about December 19, 2009, upon termination Mr. Cole timely filed a
formal administrative complaint asserting discrimination to the Hillside Human Resources Department” (emphasis
added).
-2-
opportunity to file, within 20 days, an amended complaint properly setting out a Title VII claim
of retaliation.
II.
The Court issued its Order giving Cole 20 days to amend his complaint on June 9, 2011.
The deadline for the filing of an amended complaint passed on June 29, 2011. Now, some 50
days after the Court gave Cole 20 days to amend, he has not filed an amended complaint, nor has
he asked for an extension of the Court’s deadline or otherwise indicated that he plans to accept
the Court’s offer to revive his dismissed retaliation claim. The Court must therefore conclude
that Cole has reached a decision not to pursue this litigation any further.
Accordingly, Count III (retaliation) of the Complaint is now DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Final Judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Cole, and
the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
A separate Order will ISSUE.
/s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
July 28, 2011
-3-
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?