Teal v. Buckley et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/2/2015. (c/m 3/2/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)

-_FILED
_ENTERED

-.-LOGGED

-

MAR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F'OR THE DISTRICT OF' MARYLAND
Soutltem Dh'isio/l

-RECEIVED

22015

CLERK "lr GREENBELT
BY

DISTR/C~

gn~~J8~gRT
DEPUTY

ERIC L. TEAL,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
Case No.: G,IH.I-t.2550

*
CHRIS BUCKLEY, et

{II.

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

This action is brought by unrepresented Plaintiff Eric L. Teal against his fonner
employer. R & R Ventures Incorporated ("R & R") and Chris Buckley. one of Plaintiffs

formcr

supervisors. alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 ("Title VII"). This Mcmorandum and accompanying Order address Defendant Chris
Buckley's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12. and supporting memorandum. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff
was given an extension of time to oppose the motion. he has not done so. and the time for doing
so has now passed. See ECF Nos. 20 & 21. The Court tinds that a hearing is unnecessary. See
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below. Defendant Buckley's motion to dismiss is
GRANTED and he is DISMISSED from this action.
I.

BACKGROUND
According to Plaintiffs Complaint. he was tired on April 8.2014 for alleged job

abandonment. ECF NO.4 at2. PlaintilTexplains that he was sick that day and spoke with a
supervisor. .lay. and an individual named Dion Berry. Id He e1aims that he "was not told that
[he 1 could not clock out:' but when he did so. Dion Berry followed him outside and told him that

Chris Buckley would take him offthc schedulc for the rcst of the wcck. Jd. Whcn Plaintiff
arrived at work on April 10.2014, Chris Bucklcy tired him for job abandonmcnt. Jd. at 2-3.
Plaintiff contends that a Caucasian employee, Anita Cannon, was not tired cvcn though she
clockcd out on April 7,2014 after stating that she was sick./d

at 3. PlaintilTasscrts that thc

Maryland Uncmploymcnt Board grantcd Plaintiff unemployment bccausc hc did not abandon his
job. Jd. He statcs that other African American employccs have bcen lired. Id
Plaintiffattached

an "employce status change" to his Complaint. This form was

completed by Dion Berry and states "Eric Tcal was tcrminated for job abandonment on 4/9113.
On thc 9th Eric told other employces that he wasn't dcaling with any crap and said forget this.
and he clocked out without any managemcnt approval and wcnt home:' ECl' NO.4-I at 1.
Plaintiff also attachcd a hand-writtcn note from an individual whosc namc appcars to be Tracy
Varuel. which reads: "When Eric came to work he got upset whcn Dian told him to go to thc
other side with Jay. Eric said that he was not going to put up with Dion's shit and clocked out
and left:' ECl' No. 4-1 at 2.
PlaintitTtiled a complaint with thc U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"). See ECl' No. 4-2. The EEOC found that it was unable to conclude that the
intormation it obtained established a violation of Title VII. Id The EEOC issucd PlaintilTa rightto-sue Ictter on May 13, 2014. Id PlaintilTthen lilcd two complaints in this Court against his
timner employer and tortner supervisor-one

on August II, 2014 and one on August 21. 2014-

which have been consolidated. ECl' NO.3. Defendant Chris Buckley has tiled a Motion to
Dismiss fiJr failure to state a claim. ECl' No. 12. Plaintiffrcquested

an extension oftimc to

respond to the Motion to Dismiss. ECl' No. 17. lie was granted the extension and had sixty days
from December 4,2014 to respond. See ECl' Nos. 20 & 21. He has tailed to do so.

2

II.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to movc to dismiss a
complaint ifthc plaintilfhas

failed to statc a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive

a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). "a complaint must contain sutlicicnt factualmattcr. acccpted
as truc. 'to state a claim to rclicfthat is plausible on its
678 (2009) (citing Bell Allalllic Corp,

I',

tilCC .••.

Ashero!i

I',

Iqhal. 556 U.S. 662.

TI•. mMy. 550 U.S. 544. 570 (2007)). "A claim has
o

lacial plausibility whcn thc plaintiff pleads factual contcnt that allows thc court to draw the
rcasonable infcrence that thc defendant is liablc for the misconduct alleged'" Iqbal. 556 U.S. at
663. A complaint must contain "a short and plain statcmcnt of the claim showing that thc plcadcr
is entitled to reliet:"" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). and must state "a plausible claim for relict:"" as
..[t]hreadbare recitals ofthc elcments ofa cause of action. supportcd by mere conclusory
statements. do not sutlice'" Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678-79: Tll'OmMy. 550 U.S. at 545 ("a plaintin-s
obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'cntitle[mentJ to relier rcquires morc than labels and
conclusions. and a formulaic rccitation ofa cause ofaction's

e1cmcnts will not do.").

Dcfendant Buckley asserts that hc was onc of Plaintifrs supervisors and cannot be liablc
in his individual capacity undcr Title VII. ECF No. 13 at 2. Thc Court agrees as thc law on this
issue is ,,'cll settled. The Fourth Circuit has hcld that "supervisors arc not liablc in their
individual capacities for Title VII violations'" Lissal/l'. Food Sen' .. Illc.. 159 F.3d 177. 181 (4th
Cir. 1998). In Lissal/. the Court explained that because Title VII exempts cmployers that havc
only a few employees fi'om its requircments. it would make little sense to find that a single
individual is liable under Title VII. Id at 180. Because Title VII is limited to employer liahility.

PlaintifT has failed to state a claim against Defendant Buckley and Buekley's Motion to Dismiss
is GRANTED.]
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above. the Motion to Dismiss Buckley as a party. ECF No. 12. is
GRANTED.
A separate Order shall issue.

//0--/1-' -

Dated: March 2. 2015

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

] In addition. PlaintifThas not responded to Defendant Chris Buckley's Motion to Dismiss and.
therefore. has abandoned his claims against this Defendant. See Ferdinand-D(I\'enl'0rt ,'.
Children"s Guild, 742 F. Supp. 2d 772. 777 (D. Md. 20 I0) ("By her failure to respond to
[defendant's] argument" in a motion to dismiss. "the plaintiff abandons [her] claim."): Menlch ".
Eastern Sal'. Bank. FSB, 949 F. Supp. 1236. 1247 (D. Md. 1997) (holding that failure to address
defendant's arguments for summary judgment in opposition brief constituted abandonment of
claim).

4