Plaintiff was a licensed social worker who began employment
with the Children's Guild as a clinician/social worker on November 6, 2007.
After her hiring, Plaintiff received consistent excellent reviews and was
promoted to Admissions Coordinator in less than one year of employment. Two days
following her promotion, Plaintiff informed The Children's Guild that she was
pregnant. No adverse impact was immediately noticed.
In October 2008, Plaintiff was informed that her
position was in jeopardy as there was low student enrollment. At that time,
her supervisors informed her that there were two available social worker
positions within The Children's Guild: one in Annapolis and another in
Baltimore. When Plaintiff communicated her interest in the Annapolis
position, she was informed that she would have to interview for the position
because there was another candidate who had been employed with the
Children's Guild for less than a month. Before Plaintiff had an opportunity
to interview for the position, Plaintiff was informed that the position had
been offered to the other applicant.
A few days later, Plaintiff communicated her interest
in the Baltimore position, only to find out that the position had been
filled by an outside applicant before Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity
to interview.
Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Baltimore City Community Relations
Commission on November 24, 2008. She alleged discrimination on the basis of
sex and pregnancy and The Children's Guild's failure to hire her for the
available positions. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on January 13,
2010. The instant Complaint followed.
The Children's Guild filed a Motion to Dismiss. The
Children's Guild argued that Plaintiff's claims under the Maryland State
Government Article must be dismissed because she failed to file a Complaint
with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations. Maryland law only allows a
complainant to bring a civil claim after they have timely filed an
administrative charge under federal, state, or local law alleging unlawful
employment practice. See Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-1013(a). Although
Plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC and Baltimore City Community
Relations Commission, The Children's Guild argued that Plaintiff's failure
to file a claim with the state agency fails to satisfy the requirements of
Maryland law. The Court disagreed. Plaintiff adequately satisfied her
obligation to file a Complaint with the State by filing her charge with the
EEOC and the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission.
Next, The Children's Guild challenged sufficiency of
Plaintiff's Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). To establish a
prima facie case of discrimination for failure to hire, Plaintiff must show
four elements: (1) she must be a member of a protected class; (2) her
employer had an open position for which she applied or sought to apply; (3)
she is qualified for the position; and, (4) she was rejected for the
position under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful
discrimination. See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Service Co., 80
F.3d 954, 959-60 (4th Cir. 1996). The Children's Guild concedes that
Plaintiff established the first and third elements of the test but
challenged the sufficiency of her complaint under the second and fourth
prongs.
The Court noted that the test only demands that
Plaintiff apply, or seek to apply, for the position. The facts alleged
indicated that Plaintiff attempted to communicate her interest in the
position but that her efforts were stymied as a result of unreturned phone
calls, inadequate communication on the part of The Children's Guild, and
failure to provide the Plaintiff with information regarding the application
process. There is no requirement that an employer hold a position open for a
candidate while that candidate decides to pursue the position. However, the
employer must communicate the application process and not make the process
so onerous as to discourage or complicate the candidate's application.
The Children's Guild also challenged the fourth prong,
being that Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to prove that she was
rejected for the position under circumstances that give rise to an unlawful
discrimination. The Court disagreed and found sufficient facts to meet this
threshold. Specifically, Plaintiff was not made aware of the Baltimore and
Annapolis positions until the last hours before the positions were filled.
Even then, The Children's Guild elected to fill the positions with other
candidates who had never worked for The Children's Guild or who had only
worked for The Children's Guild for a mere matter of months. The Plaintiff
was not even afforded an opportunity to interview for the positions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint satisfactorily pled facts sufficient to
support her claim.
With regard to the Baltimore City claims, the Court
noted that these claims could be dismissed because the Baltimore City Code
does not provide for a private right of action.
Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in
part The Children's Guild's Motion to Dismiss with respect to the pregnancy
discrimination claims.
Top
