Myles-Anderson v. The EMMES Corporation
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/3/2017. (c/m 3/3/17 rss)(rss, Deputy Clerk)
'I ~ I'
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
T ANESHA MYLES-ANDERSON,
Case No.: G.I1I- I :;-246 I
THE EMMES CORPORATION,
against her fClrIner employcr.
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.c.
brings suit pro se
~ 2000e el self .. Md. Code.
7. 20 I J
Cty. Code ~ 27-19 arising from hcr Novcmber
claims that hcr termination
the EMMES Corporation
State Gov't ~ 20-606. and Montgomery
was in retaliation
Presently pending befcJrc the Court is Defendant's
ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has not responded
fc)r ber complaints
Motion. and the time jC)r
doing so has expired. See Eel' No. 19. No hearing is necessary.
See Loc. R. 105.6. For the
Motion for Summary
as an Olliee Scrvices Manager
at the EMMES Corporation
from Fcbruary 22. 2011 until November
No. \8-1 at I. I Myles-Andcrson
is African Amcrican.
cntering and maintaining
ncw hirc and employcc
supplics. and making prcscntations
ECI' No. 1 ~ 2. In hcr position as Oflice
for various administrative
ordcring name platcs and oflicc
ECI' No. 18-1 at 2: ECI' No. IX-3 at
In July of2013.
receivcd two cmails Ii'Dln Brian Hochhcimcr.
Vicc Prcsident and Chicf Financial Onker.
ECF No. \8-1 at 2. According
told hcr. "Itlhis is not acceptable.
and wc nced to be on time'" Id. Myles-Andcrson
July 9. 2013. Ilochheimcr
written warning to Myles-Andcrson
this cmail. Id. J Ilochheimer
on July 10.2013.
about arriving latc. lie statcd. "On
and rcady to usc ... This is unexcusable'"
rcceived and acknowlcdged
ECF No. 18-7
with our ncw hires
receivcd and acknowledgcd
Monday. you were latc arriving to work and late for oricntation.
It is our lirst interaction
again emailed Myles-Anderson
all the ncw hirc badgcs were activatcd
with hcr lack of
cmail datcd July 2. 2013. Mylcs-
had arrivcd late to hcr portion of the ncw hirc oricntation
at 2. Ilochheimcr
ECI' No. I x-x at
issucd a f
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?