Ms. Taylor was a Correctional Officer Captain at Patuxent
Institution in Jessup, Maryland until she resigned in September 2008. She had
been employed at Patuxent for eighteen years but resigned rather than accept
demotion from the rank of Captain to Lieutenant. A particular event ("the
incident") led to her demotion. The incident occurred on August 22, 2008.
Specifically, Ms. Taylor left Patuxent to bring back two birthday cakes and was
demoted on the grounds that she left the prison without clocking-out and brought
two cakes into the prison without proper authorization.
The incident was not the only complaint against Ms. Taylor.
She was also accused of favoritism and had a complaint filed against her by a
subordinate. Additionally, in the two years preceding her demotion, she had
three complaints filed against her for "various infractions."
Ms. Taylor did not appeal her demotion and was allegedly
barred from employment from all correctional facilities in Maryland. Therefore,
she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission alleging: (1) unlawful discrimination because she is African American
and a woman; (2) unlawful retaliation for her filing a grievance with the Office
of Administrative Hearings; (3) constructive discharge because of two years of
"continuous harassment"; and (4) violations of her due process rights.
A. Title VII Claims
A plaintiff may establish discrimination by two means.
First, through direct or circumstantial evidence that discrimination motivated
an employer’s adverse employment action. Second, if there is no direct evidence
of discrimination, under a pretext framework to raise an inference of
discrimination as set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Ms. Taylor’s Complaint did not include allegations
of direct discrimination; therefore, it was analyzed under the pretext
framework.
1. Discrimination
To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination
where a demotion has occurred, a Plaintiff must show that: (1) she was a member
of a protected class; (2) she was discharged or demoted; (3) at the time of her
discharge or demotion, she was performing her job at a level that met her
employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) her discharge or demotion occurred
under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference or unlawful
discrimination. To state a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to
disciplinary measures, a Plaintiff who is a member of a protected class must
show: (1) that she "engaged in prohibited conduct similar to that of a person of
another race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, and (2) that
disciplinary measures enforced against [her] were more severe than those
enforced against the other person."
Even though Ms. Taylor is a member of a protected class and
she was demoted, she had not alleged facts sufficient to survive Patuxent’s
Motion to Dismiss. Based upon the "incident" and the several complaints for
"various infractions," including insubordination, Ms. Taylor had not
sufficiently pled that she was performing her job satisfactorily. Rather, as she
admitted in her Complaint, her demotion was specifically the result of her
engagement in what Patuxent believed was prohibited behavior. Likewise, she did
not allege any facts suggesting that she engaged in prohibited conduct similar
to that of a person of another race or gender, or that the disciplinary measures
taken against her were more severe than those taken against the other person.
2. Retaliation
Ms. Taylor had failed to allege that she had engaged in
protected activity; therefore, her retaliation claim failed. To establish a
-prima facie_ case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she: (1) engaged
in protected activity; (2) the employer acted adversely against her; and (3) the
protected activity and the adverse action were casually connected. If a
plaintiff shows that he or she opposed discriminatory practices by
"complain[ing] to his or her employer or paticipat[ing] in an employer’s
informal grievance procedure in an orderly and nondisruptive manner," then the
employee’s activities are entitled to protection.
Ms. Taylor had simply not alleged that she ever complained
to Patuxent about discrimination or other unlawful employment practices;
therefore, her claim was dismissed.
3. Constructive Discharge
The elements of constructive discharge are: "(1) the
deliberateness of [the employer’s] actions, motivated by racial [or sexual]
bias, and (2) the objective intolerability of the working conditions." Ms.
Taylor however, failed to allege any facts suggesting that her demotion was a
deliberate attempt to induce her to quit. The fact that disciplinary complaints
were filed against her on several occasions did not by itself raise an inference
that Patuxent deliberately sought her resignation. Moreover, Ms. Taylor had not
alleged facts showing that she was subjected to objectively intolerable working
conditions. Specifically, she did not support her allegation that she was the
"target of continuous harassment," with any facts. Accordingly, her constructive
discharge claim was dismissed.
B. Due Process
Ms. Taylor alleged that Patuxent violated her due process
rights by demoting her to the rank of Lieutenant without giving her "notice of
charges upon which the hearing to demote was predicated." Assuming that she had
a protected interest in her continued employment, due process requires only that
"as a prerequisite to an intentional deprivation of a protected property
interest, the government must provide some notice and an opportunity for hearing
appropriate to the nature of the case."
Ms. Taylor did not plead sufficient facts to state a claim
under the Due Process Clause and, therefore, her claim was dismissed. First, her
resignation was voluntary and therefore the Due Process Clause was not
implicated because the State did not deprive her of a property interest. Second,
she was given the option of having a hearing prior to her announced demotion, as
shown by the procedures Patuxent followed under Maryland law. Furthermore, she
was given information about her appeal rights.
Top
