Myles-Anderson v. The EMMES Corporation

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/3/2017. (c/m 3/3/17 rss)(rss, Deputy Clerk)

'I ~ I'

C

'I
"

,',
,.'

1'1

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
..,

SOlltherll Dh'i,\'ioll

1\
I

.~.
\

, ••.•••

~,.
T ANESHA MYLES-ANDERSON,

*

Plaintiff,

*
Case No.: G.I1I- I :;-246 I

Y.

*
THE EMMES CORPORATION,

*
Defendant.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
PlaintiffTanesha

Myles-Anderson

against her fClrIner employcr.
violations

("Plaintiff'

or "Myles-Anderson")
("Delendan\"'

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.c.

termination.

*

*

brings suit pro se

or "EMMES").

fc)r allcged

~ 2000e el self .. Md. Code.
7. 20 I J

Cty. Code ~ 27-19 arising from hcr Novcmber

Plainti 1'1'
claims that hcr termination

discrimination.

*

OPINION

the EMMES Corporation

State Gov't ~ 20-606. and Montgomery

Judgmcnt.

*

*

was in retaliation

Presently pending befcJrc the Court is Defendant's

ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has not responded

fc)r ber complaints

of racial

Motion fc))'Summary

to Defendant's

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

fc)lIowing reasons.

is granted.

I.

Defendant's

Motion for Summary

Judgment

BACKGROUND
Tanesha

Maryland

Myles-Anderson

was employed

as an Olliee Scrvices Manager

at the EMMES Corporation

in Rockville.

from Fcbruary 22. 2011 until November

7. 20D.

ECF

No. \8-1 at I. I Myles-Andcrson
Scrviccs Managcr.

is African Amcrican.

Myles-Andcrson

cntering and maintaining

was rcsponsiblc

ncw hirc and employcc

supplics. and making prcscntations

ECI' No. 1 ~ 2. In hcr position as Oflice

atncw

for various administrative

information.

hirc oricntations.

tasks. including

ordcring name platcs and oflicc
ECI' No. 18-1 at 2: ECI' No. IX-3 at

2.
In July of2013.

Mylcs-Andcrson

receivcd two cmails Ii'Dln Brian Hochhcimcr.

Vicc Prcsident and Chicf Financial Onker.
punctuality.
Andcrson

ECF No. \8-1 at 2. According

cxprcssing

his displeasurc

to Hochhcimcr's

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
attcntion

thc email.ld.

In addition.

this cmail. Id. J Ilochheimer

on July 10.2013.

2

On

about arriving latc. lie statcd. "On
I understand

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.

3. Myles-Andcrson

prcsentation.

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

EM/vIES

thaI not

ECI' No. I x-x at

issucd a f<lrInal

citing her latc arrivals and unsatisfactory

to dctail. ECF NO.1 X-9. She was warned that failurc to corrcct thcse issucs "may lead

to further disciplinary

action. up to and including

tcrmination

of cmploymcnt'"

Two months passed. On August 29. 2013. Myles-Anderson
from I'acilitics

Managcr Clay Edwards.

Id.

receivcd a writtcn warning

ECI' No. 18-10 at 2. Edwards statcd that Plaintiff

I Pin cites to documents
tiled on the Court"s electronic tiling system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated
hy that system.
! Myles-Anderson
did not dispute that she was latc. but rather. stated that "things can happen vcry quickly nl the
front desk" and that she was "NO MORE than a thv minutes laic:' ECF No. 18-7 at 2.
J Myles-Anderson again did not dispute she was latc. but claimed that she should have been paged when it was her

tum to present at orientation. ECF No. 18-8 at 3.

2

"continucld] to maintain individual cmployc[cs'] information incorrcctly. Over the last thrcc
days I havc discovcred and corrccted approximatcly twcnty employce cntrics which ... had not
bccn corrcctly administered:'

Id Edwards furthcr explained that "[yJour pcrformancc in this area

has workcd to undcrmine the cfforts of this dcpartmcnt and othcr EMMES stafe

It!. Mylcs-

Andcrson was again cautioncd that ttlilurc to corrcct thcsc issucs "may lead to furthcr
disciplinary action. up to and including tcrmination of cmploymcnt:'

It!.

On Scptembcr 18. 2013. Myles-Anderson wrote a Ictter to Dr. Ann Lindblad. the
Prcsident of EMMES. ECF No. 18- I3 at 2. Mylcs-Andcrson told Or. Lindblad. "I fccl as thc new
Prcsident of EMMES younecd to be madc awarc of thc bchavior being exhibited by senior
managcment and what I and othcrs deem to be a 'hostile work environment:"

Id In thc Icttcr.

Mylcs-Anderson complaincd primarily about "harassment" Irom a rcccptionist. Rachcl
Simpson.4 Mylcs-Andcrson statcd that Simpson was not rcprimandcd by the managcrs Ill!" this
bchavior. and shc fclt that "this was the culture and it[']s always ignorcd w[h]cre pcoplc of color
are conccrncd. Pcople of color arc bcing hcld to a di ffercnt sct of unspokcn rulcs and standards:'
Id Additionally. Myles-Anderson claimed that Edwards and Ilochheimcr "havc cither obscrved
or been made aware of this intolerant bchavior and now my perfornlancc has becn impactcd."
and that thcir "solution to this problcm is to terminate my employment with EMMES:' Id
Myles-Anderson rciterated that she fclt bullied and asked Dr. Lindblad for support.
Following this Icttcr. Vice Prcsident of Iluman Resources Jennifer Hestcr cngagcd an
outside investigator to invcstigate Mylcs-Andcrson's

claims of discrimination. ECF No. I 8-2 ~

3; ECF No. 18 at 4. According to Hcstcr. thc investigator intervicwcd cight witncsscs. including

.Myles-Anderson stated that Simpson was resentful of tile fact that Myles-Anderson had obtained a position for
which Simpson had previously interviewed. and that Simpson had engaged in "'disrupting and sabotaging behavior"
towards Myles-Anderson.
including sending emails to other staffmcrnbcrs "undermining" Myles-Anderson. ECF
No. 18-13 aI2-5.
4

,
.,

Eel' No. 18-2'i 4. Myles-Anderson

Myles-Anderson.
employees
evidence

[of colorj"" who had heen discriminated
supporting

investigator

of them appeared

existed hetween Myles-Anderson

against those named by Myles-Anderson
professionally'"
of discrimination

Id

of the investigation.

on Octoher 25.2013. Id ~ 8. Although

to he racially-motivated.

'1 9. Somctime

[otherj certain

the

Id ~ 7. Thc rcsults ofthc investigation

"found no evidence of unlawful conduct'"

that hostilities

identified

against. but "never provided any details or

Id ~ 6. Alier completion

her allegations'"

werc shared with Myles-Andcrson
concluded

"eventually

thc investigator

and other EMMES employces.

Id EMMES did. however. take "eorrective
who EMMES detcrmined

Opportunity

action

had not acted

during thc Fall of 20 13. Myles-Anderson

with the Equal Employment

none

also tilcd a chargc

See i<l.

Commission.

'i 11

5

Defcndant

states that they were not aware that thc EEOC charge had heen filed until February 2014.1<1.
During this time. Myles-Anderson

reeeivcd two additional

emails on Septemher

26.2013

and October 8. 2013 citing her perf<lrInanee issues. ECF No. 18-16 at 2: ECF No. 18-17 at 2. In
these cmails. Edwards informed

Myles-Anderson

that she had I<)rgotten to order several name

tags. causing issues f()r both thc new hires and Edwards.
Anderson

had failed to update an issue for an employee

process an order for another employee
On November

7. 2013. Myles-Anderson

misspelling

including

incomplete

in the "issue tracker" and also failed to

bel<Jre leaving work that day. ECF No. 18-16 at 2.
received notice of termination

ECF No. 18-4 at 2. The letter cited several examples
performancc'"

1<1.Edwards further stated that Myles-

of"continued

data entry. incorrcct

unsatisfactory

Id Thc termination

The charge was dismissed on Fcbruarv 27. 2014, and Mvles-Andcrson
to sue. ECF No. 1&-12 at 2..'

5

4

work

inf<mnation postcd to the Intranet. the

ofa new hire's name for his wall tag. and "failure to notify Network

timely manner of new hire ofTer assignments'"

from EMMES.

Services in a

letter noted the repeated

simultaneouslv
.

received notice of her rioht
~

warnings

bringing

these issues to Mylcs-Andcrson's

I. Myles-Andcrson

filed the instant Complaint

in this Court on August 20. 2015. ECF No.

asscrtcd claims under 1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2)

Code. State Gov't ~ 20-606 (unlawful
27-19 (discriminatory
Summary

and the ultimatc failurc to

Id.

improve her performance.
Myles-Anderson

attcntion.

Judgmcnt

as a pro se plaintiff

employment

cmployment

practices).

on May 10.2016.

practices),

and 3) Montgomcry

ECF No. I at 2-3. Defendant

Md.

Cty. Code ~

filed its Motion for

ECF No. 18. The Court sent a letter to Myles-Anderson.

inl()[flling her that a dispositive

motion had bccn filed in her case. and

advising her of her rights under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 56. Eel' No. 19. To date. Plaintiff has not
responded.
II.

STANDARD

OF REVIEW

The court "shall grant summary judgment

ifthc movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is cntitlcd to judgmcnt

as a matter of law." Fcd. R.

I

Civ. P. 56(c). A material

fact is one that "might aflect the outcome of the suit under the

governing

law." Alldersolll'.

a material

fact exists "if the evidence
party." Id. In undertaking

nonmoving
rcasonable

inferences

U.S. 372.378

issue over

is such that a reasonable jury could return a vcrdict t()r the
this inquiry. the Court must consider the facts and all

in the light most favorablc to the nonmoving

party . .'lcoll

(2007). But this Court must also abidc by its aftirmative

lactually unsupported
778-79

Uherly Lohhy. IlIc .. 477 U.S. 242. 248 (1986). A gcnuine

claims and defenses

from going to trial. f)rell'ill

l'.

obligation

lIarris.

550

to prevent

\'. Prall. 999 F.2d 774.

(4th Cir. 1(93).
The burden is on the moving party to show ..that therc is no genuine issue as to any

material tact. However.

no genuine issuc of material

5

tact exists if the nonmoving

party fails to

makc a suflicicnt showing on an csscntial clement of his or her case as to which hc or she would
havc thc burdcn ofprooC

Bell/on\'. Prince George"" 01l1Y. Coli .. No. CIV.A. DKC 12-1577.

2013 WI. 4501324. at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 21. 2013) (citing Celolex Corp.

I'.

Calrel/. 477 U.S. 317.

322-23 (1986)). Thus. upon a motion for summary judgmcnt. the opposing party "may not rest
upon ... mcrc allegations or dcnials," but rathcr. "must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuinc issue IiJr trial. If the [opposing I party docs not so rcspond. summary judgment. if
appropriatc. shall be entcred against thc [opposing] party," 7)'ler

I'.

Prim'e George '.\'Cry..

MmJ'ltmd. 16 F. App'x 191. 192 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Fcd. R. Civ. P. 56(e». In this case.
I'lainti ff has filed no rcsponsc to Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
III.

ANALYSIS
Titlc VII prohibits "cmployer retaliation on account of an cmployee's having opposcd.

complained of. or sought rcmedies for. unlawful workplace discrimination,"
Med Or.

1'.

Nassar. 133 S. Ct. 2517. 2522 (2013) (citing 42 U.S.c.

a claim for retaliation undcr Title Vll.l'laintilTmust

VIIiI'.

oj'Texas S\\'.

* 2000c-3(a)).

To establish

show that I) she engaged in a protcctcd

activity. 2) hcr cmploycr took an advcrse cmployment action against hcr. and 3) a causal
connection exists bctwccn the protected activity and the adversc action. Diggs

1'.

Bd ot'Edu<".ot'

Ballimore Cly .. Civil Action No. RDB-14-715. 2015 WI. 5604278. at * 14 (D. Md. Sept. 23.
2015) (citing Burlillgloll N. & Sanla Fe Ry. Co.

1'.

While. 548 U.S. 53.68 (2006)). To satisfy thc

causation clement ofa retaliation claim. plaintifT"must cstablish that his or her protcetcd activity
was a but-fi.)r eausc of the allegcd advcrsc action by thc cmploycr," not just a "motivating
factor," Manguial

1'.

Bd o{Educ. o{Prillce George

'.I'

CIY.. No. GJlI-13-1165. 2015 WI.

2376008. at *9-10 (D. Md. May 18.2015) (citing Nassar. 133 S.C!. at 2533-34 (2013». Irthe
plaintift~employee establishes this prima facie easc. thc burden shins to the defendant-cmployer

6

to "articulate a legitimate. non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action'" Roberts \'.
Saill/ Aglles Hosp .. No. GJH-13-3475. 2015 WL 3932398, at

* 11 (D.

Md. Junc 25. 2015) (citing

/foyle \'. Freightliller. LLC, 650 F.3d 321. 336 (4th Cir. 2011)).
Here. PlaintifThas failcd to establish the third prong of her prima facie case: causation.
Mylcs-Anderson relies exclusively on thc ..temporal proximity" between her internal complaint
of discrimination to Dr. Lindblad on September 18.2013. and her tcrmination on November 7.
2013. ECF No. I at 2: see Francis

I'.

Booz. AI/ell & l/amiltoll. Illc.. 452 F.3d 299. 309 (4th Cir.

2006). and provides no othcr dctails suggesting a causal connection betwcen her complaint and
her termination, But the actions that led to Plaintiff-s termination began be/i!l'e her complaint to
Dr. Lindblad. See Frallcis, 452 F.3d at 309 (affirming summary judgment whcre thc "actions that
led to [plaintiff's] probation and tcrmination began bel(lre her protccted activity. belying the
conclusion that a reasonablc factfinder might lind thatldcfendant'sl
[plaintiffsj

activity was motivated by

complaints"). Specifically. Plaintiff received no fcwcr than two emails bringing her

unsatisfactory pcrformance to her attention. as wcll as two formal written warnings of possiblc
termination. well bef()re Plaintiffwrotc to Dr. Lindblad. As early as July 2.2013, EMMES Vice
President Hochheimer informcd Mylcs-Andcrson that she was latc to oricntation and it was "not
acceptablc'" lOCI'No. 18-7. Hc again wrote to hcr on July 9. 2013. expressing that arriving to
work was "inexcusable." and that certain new hire badges had not bcen activated on timc. lOCI'
No. 18-8. These problcms did not improve over the summer. as anothcr supervisor. Facilities
Manager Clay Edwards, issued a writtcn warning to Myles-Andcrson on August 29. 2013citing multi pic crrors in the database she administered. ECF No. 18-10. Thus, Plaintiff has failed
to cstablish a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination because shc
has not "adduce[d] any admissible evidence to suggest a connection betwcen [hel'l complaints

7

about alleged workplace discrimination and [herl eventual termination'" Roherl.I'. 2015 WL
3932398. at *11 (granting summary judgment for employer on retaliation claim where
employec's tcrmination was result of"lengthy and well-documentcd performance issues'").
Even if Plaintiff could establish the necessary causality. EMMES has articulated a
legitimate. non-retaliatory reason for her termination. namcly. hcr well-documentcd pcrformance
issues. On July 10.2013. Hochheimer informed Myles-Anderson that she was late to orientation.
"continued to issue employe[es'J non functioning ID badges and badges with misspclled
employce names" ECF No. 18-9 at 2. Hochheimer stressed that these dcticicncics "worked to
undermine the efforts of your department and othcr EMMES stafe

It!. On August 29. 2013.

Edwards warned Mylcs-Andcrson that "you continue to maintain individual employec's
information incorrectly ... [tlhese types of issucs have bccn brought to your attcntion multi pic
timcs including in a written warning prcscnted to you on July 10.2013'" ECF No. 18-10. Again
on September 26. 2013. Edwards cited threc instances of crrors attributablc to Myles-Andcrson.
including two namc tags that wcre not ordcred. an issuc that was not posted to thc trackcr. and an
order that was not submitted. ECF No. 18-16. Mylcs-Anderson's

final tcrmination letter on

Novcmber 7. 2013 rctlccts thcse samc conccrns. pointing to incompletc and incolTcct data entrics
and failurc to complctc assignmcnts in a timcly manner. ECI' No. 18-4. Thcrcforc. it is apparcnt
that Defcndant EMMES had a Icgitimate. non-retaliatory rcason for terminating MylcsAnderson. See ilcfangllial. 2015 WL 2376008. at 10 (granting summary judgment for employer
on retaliation claim where employcr adcquatcly demonstratcd that lowering of cmploycc's
tcaching ccrtificate was in rcsponsc to unsatisfactory pcrformancc). Additionally. bccausc
Mylcs-Andcrson providcs no rcsponsc to Defcndant's Motion for Summary Judgment the Court
is unablc to find to the contrary.

8

As for Myles-Anderson's

claims under Md. Code, State Gov't ~ 20-606 and Montgomery

Cty. Code ~ 27-19, they must similarly fail. The Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act
"tracks the language" of Title VII. and thus a retaliation claim under Maryland state law bears
the "same criteria" as a federal retaliation claim under 42 U.S.c. ~ 2000e-3(a). See Chappell \'. S.
Afwylalld Hmp ..

/IIC.,

320 Md. 483, 495-96 (1990). Further. the anti-discrimination provisions

of the Montgomery County Code are also "substantively similar" to lederallaw under Title VII.
See Magee \'. DallSources Tech. Sen's ..

/IIC.,

137 Md. App. 527,548 (20()]). Because Myles-

Anderson has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to her Title VII
retaliation claims, she has also tailed to do so under Maryland law and the Montgomery County
Code.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion t'Jr Summary Judgment. ECF No. 18, is

granted. A separate Order shall issue.

Date: March

3 ,20

J

7
George J. Haze I
United States District Judge

9