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!/! ". Ilk ".
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
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?