Sewell v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/13/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 3/13/17)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAI{YLAND
Southern Di\'ision

,-.

r-

,.
I.

-

*
STARSHA SEWELL,

*
Plaintiff,

Case No.: G.JII-16-z.t56

*
\'.

*
WASHINGTON i\1ETIWI'OLlTAN
AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

*
Defendant.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

PlnintilT Starsha Sewell [ brings this case against Defendant Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority ("WMATA"). alleging that it engaged in discriminatory employment
practices in violation of her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VIr").
42 U.S.c. ~ 2000e e{ seq .. and the Americans with Disabilities Aet ("ADA"). 42 U.s.c. ~ 12112
e{

.1'("1- ECF No. I.' Pending before the Court arc the 1()lIowing 1110tions:Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss. ECF NO.7: Plaintiirs

Motion to Strike Defendant's "Out of Time" Motion to Dismiss.

ECF No. I I: Plaintilrs Opposition to Defendant's "Out of Time Reply" to Plaintiffs Motion I()r
Reconsideration. ECF No. 12: Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Delendant's Untimely Opposition.
ECF No. 17: and Plaintiirs

Motion to Strike Defendant's Second Untimely Opposition. ECF No.

1 Any claims
that Plaintiffattcmpts
to hring 011 behalf of Linda l\1erccr will not be considered by the COlll1 because.
Olitsioc of circumstances not present here. a pro-sc litigant lllay not represent the interests of another individual. Sec
lI';f!lenpooII
\'. ./e.tliwd\' Agl'l1(l'. Inc .. 88 F. Apr'x 659. * I (4th Cir. 200.t) (ciling r,.it~l.?el1 \'. And,,(,sl'I1, 113 F.3d 391.
393 (2<.1Cir. 19(7) (discussing potential e.\ception to the rule in the context of estate proceedings).
! In a prior Order. the Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction all claims regarding an alleged
conspiracy and public corruption resulting in Plaintiffs loss orthe custody of her children. ECF No.3. In a second
Order on August 29. 2016. the Court reiterated its dismissal ofPlaintiirs additional claims and cmphasized that
"only the employmcnt discrimination claim against Washington f\tletropolitan Area Transit Authority" would be
allowed to proceed. EeF No. 10 at 3.

-,

J

9. Thcsc issucs havc bccn fully bricfed and a hearing is unneccssary.

2(16). For thc rcasons that follow. the Court will grant Defendant's
dcny all of Plail]titrs

Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md.
Motion to Dismiss and will

pcnding motions.

BACKGROUND3

I.

PlaintitTwas

employed by WMATA from February 8. 2010 through Scptcmbcr 2012.

ECF No. I al 5: Plaintiff allcges that WMATA employces
cmployment

engagcd in a scrics of discriminatory

practiccs against hcr. both during hcr employmcnt

attcmpted to rc-apply ftlr a position aileI' hcr dcparturc.

with thc agcncy and whcn shc

See R('//erally Eel' No. I.

From June 16.2011 through November 4. 2011. PlaintilTwas
medical issues.!d

at 3. PlaintilTallcges

unablc to work duc to

that Dr. Gina Pervall; diseriminatcd

of a prior disability by rcfusing to providc hcr with documentation
until January 25. 2012. cvcn though Plaintiffhad

against her bccause

neccssary to rcturn to work

passcd a mcdical and drug tcst administcred

by

another doctor on November 7. 20 II. !d Plainti 1'1'
furthcr allegcs that Dr. Pervall obstruct cd
Plaintitrs

cmployment

opportunitics

in rctaliation

It)r PlaintilTengaging

with her union regarding thc dclayed rcinstatement.

in protectcd activities

!d at 4.

In April 2012. Plaintiff applied lor a position as "Sr. Organizational
with WMATA. but was removcd Irom consideration

by Tiquisha Harris. It!. at 8. On July 6.

2012. Plaintiff lilcd a ItJrlnal complaint ofcmploymcnt
same day. was invited to engagc in an inftJrlnalmccting
resources departmcnt

concerning

her allegations.

.; Unless stated otherwise.

all facts arc taken from Plaintiffs

Training Consultant"

discrimination

with WMATA and. on thc

with an ofticial li'OIll the human

1<1. On July 11.2012.

PlaintitT receivcd a

Complaint or documents allachcd to and relieu upon in

the Complaint. and arc accepted as truc.
-I Pin cites to documents filed onlhe Court"s electronic tiling. system (CMfECF) refer 10 page numbers generated by
that svstCI1l .
.sThr~ughout the Complaint. Plaintiffrcfcrcnccs a variety of individuals. including Dr. Pcrvall. without explaining

their role with \\/MATA.

2

"generic"letter
discriminating
to continue

regarding

her concerns.

against r I'lainti ff] in the hiring process:'

with WMATA's

voluntary

with filing a tormal complaint
Plaintiff
discrimination

which "did nol...hold

Tiquisha

Harris accountable

111. On July 3 I. 2012. I'lainti ff declined

dispute resolution

process and requested

further alleges that on July 29. 2012. Amy Quillen. motivated

tlling a WMATA

against Plaintiff for engaging

internal complaint.

conducted

to move I'lr\vard

111. at 9.

against WMATA.

and in retaliation

an unauthorized

by racial

in protected activities.
background

Plaintitrs

against I'lainti IT

request for a formal charge of discrimination.

PlaintifT filed a charge with the EEOC regarding
ADA on August 28. 2012./d

such as

check of Plain tilT.

Id. Finally. on August 9. 2012. I'lainti ITalleges that James Wynne discriminated
because of her sex when he denied Plaintiffs

f(1I"

violations

at 5." On July 16.2013.

Id

of her rights under Title VII and the

the EEOC reached a final decision in

case. /d

On October 25. 2013.l'laintiffapplied
with WMATA.

111. at 5-6. PlaintifTstates

On October 28. 2013. PlaintifTwas
for her engagement

in protected

that she was "qualilied

denied consideration

activities.

EEOC. tlling an internal complaint

for the position of "Director

including

with WMATA.

to Iillithe]

of Customer

Care"

position:'

/d at 6.

lor the position. allegedly

in retaliation

tlling a charge of discrimination
and raising her discrimination

her union. /d at 6. I'lainti ff further alleges that she was denied consideration

with the

concerns

with

based on her sex

and race. 111.
Plaintiff

filed an additional

June 10. 2016. 111. at I:see also

charge with the EEOC and was issued a right to sue letter on

ECI' NO.1-I.

7

o Neither pm1y has submitted a copy of Plaintiffs 2012 EEOC Charge of Discrimination to the Court. Therefore. it
is unclear what specific charges Plaintilfraised in those prol'cedings.
7 As with the Plaintiffs 2012 EEOC Charge. neither party has submitted a copy ofPlaintirrs second EEOC Charge
of Discrimination to the Court. Thus. it is lIllclear what specific charges Plaintiff raised in those proceedings as well.

3

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "a complaint must

contain sufficient t:lctual matter. accepted as true. to 'state a claim to rcliefthat is plausible on its
face:" Ashen!/! ". I<lhal.556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009) (citing Ikll Atlall/ic Co'l'. \'. Ttl'Omhl)'.550
U.S. 544. 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintitTpleads I:lctual content
that allows the court to draw the rcasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Ilfhal. 556 U.S. at 678. "Threadbare recitals of the clements of a cause of
action. supported by mere conclusory statements. do not suffice:' /d. (citing TII'omhl)', 550 U.S.
at 555) ("a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[mentJ to relicI' requires
more thanlabcls and conclusions. and a fonnulaic recitation ofa cause ofaction's

clements will

not do. ").
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)'s purpose "is to test the sufficiency ofa complaint and not to
resolve contests surrounding the facts. the merits ofa claim. or the applicability ofdcfenses:'
Presle)' \'. Cit)' ,!!,Charlol/esl'ille. 464 FJd 480. 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). a court "must
accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint:' and must "draw all
reasonable inferences lfi'<)mthose lacts I in favor of the plainti fl'." E.!. dll PO/llde Nemollrs & Co.
\'. Kolonlndlls .. Inc.. 637 F.3d 435. 440 (4th Cir. 2(11) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). The Court need not. however. accept unsupp0l1ed legal allegations. sec ReI'em' ".
Charles COII/ll)'Comm

'1'.1'.

882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th Cir. 1989). Icgal conclusions couched as

factual allegations. Papasan v. Allain. 478 U.S. 265. 286 ( 1986). or conclusory factual
allegations devoid of any refcrence to actual cvents. United Black Firelighters olNor/i>lk ".
Hirst. 604 F.2d 844. 847 (4th Cir. 1979). Although plcadings ofsell~represented

litigants must

bc accorded

libcral construction.

libcral construction

does not mean a court can ignorc a clear I~\ilurc to allcgc lacts that sct forth a

claim. see IVeller \'. Dep', o(Soc. Sen's .. 90 I F.2d 387. 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

cognizable
III.

see Gordoll \'. I.eeke. 574 F.2d 1 147. 1 151 (4th Cir. 1978).

DISCUSSIONs

A. ADA Claims
PlaintilTalleges

that Dcfcndant

violated hcr rights undcr thc ADA by dclaying

to rcturn to work bccausc of a prior disability
cmploymcnt

opportunitics

and thcn rctaliatcd against hcr by obstructing

whcn shc raiscd hcr conccrns about discrimination

No. I at 3-4. Tillc I of thc ADA bars discrimination
disability

"in rcgard to job application

cmployccs.
cmploymcnt."

cmploycc

compcnsation.

that "[n1o pcrson shall discriminatc
chargc ... undcr this chaptcr'"

proccdurcs.

against an individual
the hiring. advancement.

A scparatc provision

against any individual

addrcsses

hcr

to hcr union. Eel'

on thc basis of

job training. and other tcnns. conditions.

42 U.S.c. ~ 12 I 12(a).

hcr ability

or discharge of
and privilcgcs

retaliation

bccause such individual

of

and spccilics
... madc a

!d.. ~ 12203(a). Howcver. states arc gcncrally immunc li'OI11
suits

II Plaintiffs
"Motion to Strike Defendant's 'Out ofTimc' Motion lo Dismiss," ECF No. II. further explained ill her
"l1ricfof Intent to ProcC'cJ," r:CF No. 14. is \\ithout merit and will be denied. PlaintitTallegcs that the U.S.
Marshals effectuated service 011 WMA T A 011 August 1.2016. but that WMA T A Iraudulently postdated their return
receipt of service to August 4. 2016. ECF No. 14 at 1. Using August I. 2016 as the date of service. Plaintiff argues
that WMATA's Motion to Dismiss. filed on August 25. 2016. was untimely. Ill. In suppon of her allegations.
Plaintiffattaches
a U.S.P.S. tracking confirmJtion. which sWtes that an item "was delivered to the mail roOIll at 3: 19
pill on August I. 2016:' ECF No. 14-2 at I. and the U.S. Marshal's signature that the summons was delivered on
August 1. 2016. Eel-' No. 14-1 at I. I i{l\vever. because service was effectuated by certified mail. the U.S. Marshal
did not personally deliver the summons. and. thus. it appears he was merely copying do\\n information regarding
delivery Ii'om the U.S.P.S. tracking wcbsile. Inlt.mnal receipt ofa complaint is insufficient to establish service.
Tinoco l". TlII!sis Painting Inc.. No. GJH-16-752. 2016 W L (1..195..128. t * I (D. Md. Nov. I. 2(16) (ciling 1(;11\'.
a
lJarker. No. Clv.A. DKC20tl5-1037.
2005 WL In1S51. at *2 (D. Md. May 26. 2005)). Furthermore. a signed
return receipl creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service./d. at *2. Here. PlainlitThas failed to allege
sufficient facts to overcome the presumption Ihat service was effectuated on August 4. 2016 when it was signed for
by WMA TA's agent. EeF No. 13. Bccause WMATA's Motion to Dismiss was timely tiled. Plaintiffs Motion is
denieLi. Plainlilrs additionallllotions.
ECF Nos. 12.17 and 19 arc similarly llawed.lnthe
first motion orlhe set.
ECF No. 12. PlaintilTappcars
10 argue that Defendant"s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion for
Reconsideration
was untimely. As the Court already addressed Plaintiffs Motion lor Reconsideration
in a prior
Order. ECF No. 10. Plaintiffs motion is denied as mool. Plaintiffs later motions. ECF Nos. 17 and 19. again seek
to strike Defcndant"s Motion to Dismiss as untimely. reiterating the same arguments she raised in her previous
mol ion. As discussed if?!i'li. such arguments arc without merit. Thus. PlaintiWs Jllotions are denied.

5

under the ADA. See Bd o(1l-ils/ees oj'Ulli\'. oj'Alahama \'. Garrell. 531 U.S. 356. 374 (2001).
.
.
.
As a state entity. WMATA enjoys the immunity afforded to Maryland and Virginia, .folies ",
Washillg/oll Me/I'll. Area 7/,(lI1si/Au/h.. 205 F.3d 428. 432 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (stating that. as pa11
of WMATA's creation. "Virginia and Maryland each conferred its immunity upon WMATA.

.

which therefore enjovs. to the same extent as each state. immunitv from suit in federal court
. .
based on its performance of governmcntal fUlletions,"); !lopps \'. Washillg/oll Me/ro. Area
7i'allsi/ Au/h.. 480 F. Supp, 2d 243. 256 (D,D,C. 2007) ("Beeausc WMATA is immune Irom suit.
plaintilrs

ADA claim must be dismissed,"),

Ilcre. Plainti fTseeks mOlletary damages regarding WMATA' s employment practices
related to its pertlmnance of governmental functions. See Mm:dmlil \', Washillg/oll Me/I'll. Area
7im/si/ All/h.. No, CIV,A, TDC-14-3397. 2015 WI. 4389885. at *4 (D. Md . .July 13.2015)
(listing "hiring. training. and supervision practices" as governmcntal functions) (internal citation
omitted). As WMATA is immune to such claims. Plaintiffs ADA claims arc dismissed with
prejudice,

R. Title VII Claims"
I'laintifTciaims that Defendant violated her rights under Title VII. alleging two claims of
failure to hire regarding her application for the positions of"Sr. Organizational Training
Consultant"' and "Director of Customer Care" at WMA TA. Title VII prohibits employment
discrimination based on "race. color. religion. sex. or national origin."' 42 U,S,c.

* 2000e-2(a).

To set Ilmh a prima./ilcie case of discrimination Illr failure to hire. a plaintifT must show four

" Defendant argues that these claims arc timed barred because Plaintiffreccivcd
a right 10 sue letter regarding these
allegations in 2013. See 42 U.S.C
2000e-5(f)( J) (plaintiff must initiate civil suit within 90 days of notice of
EEOC right to sue letter). Ilowcvcr. Defendant fails to address the f:1ct that PlaintilTreccivcd a new right to sue
letter fro~l the EEOC on June 10, 2016. ECF No. I at I. Based on the record before it. it is unclear to thc Court what
claims \\-'crcraised in each EEOC chargc or if Plaintiff exhausted her adm inislrativc rcmedies prior to til ing this
claim. Becausc the Court finds that Plaintiff did not stalc a claim. thc Court will nol decidc thc issue of exhaustion.

*

6

elements:

"( I ) she is a member of a protected e1ass: (2) her employer

which she applied or sought to apply: (3) she was qualitied
rejected

fClrthe position under circumstances

discrimination:'
Cir.1996)

E\"(lI1s v. Techl7ologies

(citations

omitted).

Here. I'laintifTtails
Organizational
"qualitied

IClrthe position: and (4) she was

giving rise to an inlerence

& Sen'ice

Applicatiol7s

Co .. 80 r:.3d 954. 959-60 (4th

to even allege that she was qualified
Consultant:'

of"Direetor

ofCustol11er

is berell of any factual allegations

fClfthe position under circumstances

fClrthe positon of"Sr.

and merely states in conelusory
Care:'

or training that would support such an assertion.

Complaint

of unlawful

Plainti fThas not met this burden.

to till [the] position"

skills. education.
Plaintiff's

Training

had an open position fClr

fashion that she was

without any relerence

to her

ECF No. I at 6. 8. Further.

that demonstrate

that "shc was rcjectcd

giving rise to an inference of unlawful

discrimination:'

EV(1l7s. 80 F.3d at 959-60. Plaintiff merely states that she applied for two positions at WMATA
and was not selected. "Threadbare
mere conclusory

statements.

555). Thus. Plaintiffs

recitals of the clements

do not sutlice:'

claims arc dismissed.

ofa cause of action. supported

by

Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678 (citing T\I'oll1h1)'. 550 U.S. at
III

10 Likewise. Plaintitrs additional claims. relating to an unauthorized background check and WMA TA's failure to
issue a formal charge of discrimination. assuming they arc even within the purvie\\' of Title VII. similarly fail as
PlaintiO' has stated her allegations in conclusory fashion. without any nlcts to SUPP0l1 an inference that such actions

\vcrc taken because of her race. sex or in retaliation

for her "cfTorts to secure or advance enforcement

of the

basic guarantees."' Burling/on N. & Saula Fe Ry. Co. \', While. 54& U.S. 53. 63 (2006). Thus. such claims. if
cognizable. are also dismissed.

7

Act's

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Defendant"s

amI PlaintilTs

Motion to Dismiss. ECF NO.7. shall he granted.

pending motions. ECF Nos. II. 12. 17 and 19 shall be denied. A separate Order

follows.

Dated: Marcil

3 . 20 I 7
GEORGE.I.IIAZEL
United States District .Iudge

8