Shedrick v. Prince George's Community College et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

D. Md.February 28, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LESTINE SHEDRICK * Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: 8:16-CV-04127-GJH PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY * COLLEGE et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Prince George’s Community College (PGCC), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Local Rule 105, submits this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The facts as alleged do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6) because PGCC did not fail to accommodate Plaintiff or discriminate against her because of her alleged disability. Plaintiff, moreover, did not exhaust administrative remedies with regard to her disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Maryland state law. The Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims, to the extent they are brought under the ADA and Maryland law. The Court also Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2 2 lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claims because the College is a state entity and Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been abrogated for ADA claims. WHEREFORE, for these reasons, which are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, Defendant Prince George’s Community College respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Respectfully submitted, /s/ J. Garrett Wozniak Clifford B. Geiger, #15549 J. Garrett Wozniak, #18919 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. The Business Law Building 1823 York Road Timonium, Maryland 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300 Fax: 410-727-4391 gwozniak@kollmanlaw.com /s/ V. Daniel Palumbo V. Daniel Palumbo, #04007 Palumbo Law Group, LLC 10905 Fort Washington Road, Suite 103 Fort Washington, Maryland 20744 Phone: 301-292-8300 Fax: 301-292-3434 Counsel for Defendant Prince George’s Community College Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LESTINE SHEDRICK * Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: 8:16-CV-04127-GJH PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY * COLLEGE et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Lestine Shedrick has filed a two-count Complaint against Prince George’s Community College (PGCC) and the State of Maryland, alleging failure to accommodate (Count I) and discriminatory discharge (Count II) under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Maryland law. The facts as alleged do not support Shedrick’s failure to accommodate or discriminatory discharge claims, because she was accommodated; she has not stated claims upon which relief can be granted; she has failed to exhaust administrative remedies; and Shedrick’s ADA claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Shedrick, a former adjunct professor, claims that the College failed to accommodate an alleged voice disorder that impaired her ability to speak for extended Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 14 2 periods and, consequently, her ability to teach courses in-person. Shedrick’s allegations show, however, that she did not need or request an accommodation to teach as an adjunct, because she was not required to teach in-person in that role. Adjunct professors are permitted to teach all of their courses online. The issue of accommodating Shedrick’s alleged disability arose only during the limited time Shedrick was employed as a full- time faculty member. In fall 2014 and spring 2015, the College employed Shedrick as a full-time faculty member. Shedrick was hired on an emergency basis to fill a fixed-term contract for each of those semesters. As a full-time faculty member, Shedrick would be required to teach at least one in-person course per semester. Shedrick admits that the College accommodated her during the two semesters she was a full-time employee -- it did not require that she teach in-person courses. Shedrick’s full-time fixed term contract ended on May 21, 2015, at the end of the spring 2015 semester. Thereafter, Shedrick continued to teach at the College as an adjunct professor; she taught online courses during the summer and fall of 2015. There was no failure to accommodate and no disability discrimination, because: (i) Shedrick did not request and did not need an accommodation to teach online classes as an adjunct professor; and (ii) the College was not required to provide Shedrick with an accommodation to enable her to perform the essential functions of a job she no longer had. Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 14 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS. A. Shedrick’s Employment At PGCC. The College hired Shedrick in 2010 as an adjunct faculty member. C ¶ 8. Prior to the fall 2014 semester, Shedrick developed a voice disorder, which impaired her ability to speak for more than 30 minutes. C ¶ 11. The disorder did not prevent Shedrick from teaching online courses from her California home, however. C ¶¶ 12-14. And Shedrick did just that -- she taught online courses until she was offered a temporary full- time position in fall 2014. Shedrick was an emergency hire for the fall 2014 semester. Exhibit 1. The College offered Shedrick a full-time, one semester, fixed term faculty position beginning August 18, 2014. Id. The full-time faculty position required that Shedrick teach at least one in-person class. C ¶¶ 15-16. Shedrick requested an accommodation from then Department Chair, Dr. Swazz Young. Dr. Young permitted Shedrick to teach two additional online classes instead of teaching an in-person course. C ¶¶ 17-20. Shedrick taught as a full-time faculty member, with an accommodation, during the fall 2014 semester. C ¶¶ 15-21. Shedrick was again hired as a fixed-term, one semester, full-time faculty member for the spring 2015 semester. Exhibit 2. This non-renewable appointment was for the period January 12, 2015 through May 21, 2015. Id. In January 2015, Professor Sonia Bell became Shedrick’s supervisor. C ¶ 24. Bell permitted Shedrick to continue teaching online courses during the spring 2015 semester, in lieu of meeting the in-person requirement. C ¶¶ 25-27. Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 14 4 On May 28, 2015, the College advertised vacancies for two full-time faculty positions in psychology. Exhibit 3. These positions were previously occupied by Dr. Young, who had passed away, and Vincent McKenzie, whose retirement had created the need to make Shedrick an emergency full-time hire in August 2014. Both positions were scheduled to start for the fall 2015 semester. Shedrick was copied on a May 28, 2015 email notifying College employees of the vacancies and describing the application process. Exhibit 4. On June 8, 2015, Shedrick received a reminder that applications for the full-time openings were due by June 10, 2015. Exhibit 5. Shedrick did not submit an application for either position. Exhibit 6. Shedrick alleges the College did not accommodate her after the spring 2015 semester. C ¶¶ 28-31, 35-36. Her allegation suffers from two fatal flaws. First, after the spring 2015 semester, Shedrick was no longer on a fixed-term, full-time faculty contract; her non-renewable contract ended on May 21, 2015. See Ex. 2. As she had done in the past, Shedrick taught online classes, as an adjunct, during the College’s 2015 summer session. C ¶¶ 32-34. She needed no accommodation to teach as an adjunct, because she was not required to teach in-person. See C ¶¶ 12-14, 16-21, 25-27, 32-34. Second, Shedrick did not apply for, and therefore was not considered for, either of the two full- time psychology faculty positions available for fall 2015. See Ex. 6. Shedrick’s full-time employment terminated on May 21, 2015. Ex. 2. There was no need for the College to consider a request for an accommodation that would allow Shedrick to perform a job she did not have. Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 14 5 Shedrick did not need an accommodation after the spring 2015 semester, because she was no longer a full-time faculty member required to teach in-person. Once her spring 2015 fixed-term contract ended, Shedrick continued her employment with the College as an adjunct professor teaching online classes, which she admittedly could do without accommodation. C ¶¶ 12-14, 16-21, 25-27, 32-34. Shedrick claims that “in August 2015” Bell told her she would have to be adjunct status for the fall semester and “effectively informed Plaintiff that the College was not going to reasonably accommodate her any longer.” C ¶¶ 35-36. Shedrick was not, however, a full-time employee after May 21, 2015, and she did not apply for the advertised full-time openings. Exs. 2 and 6. Furthermore, despite the alleged lack of accommodation, Shedrick also alleges that she continued teaching as an adjunct professor in the fall of 2015. C ¶ 37. The allegations that Shedrick taught online classes as an adjunct in the summer and fall of 2015 show that she did not need an accommodation to continue teaching in her part- time role. See C ¶¶ 12-14, 16-21, 25-27, 32-37. Shedrick alleges that she was not invited to teach after the fall 2015 semester and that she was terminated after the fall 2016 semester. C ¶¶ 37-39, 49. Shedrick was not actually terminated and remains eligible to teach as an adjunct at the College. Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 5 of 14 6 B. Shedrick’s EEOC Charge. Shedrick filed her initial charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on December 14, 2015, and filed an amended charge on March 22, 2016. Exhibit 7.1 She claimed in her charge that, between May 4 and August 13, 2015, “I have been discriminated against on the basis of my disability with regard to denial of reasonable accommodation(s).” Ex. 7. In support of her failure to accommodate claim, Shedrick claimed that: (1) she disclosed her disability to the College in July 2014 and her request for a reasonable accommodation was granted; (2) on May 4, 2015, Bell requested that Shedrick teach an onsite class and Shedrick reminded her that she could not do so; and (3) in August 2015, Bell told Shedrick that she had to return to adjunct status. Ex. 7. III. RELIANCE ON DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN THE COMPLAINT. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court may “consider documents attached to the complaint . . . as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Cook v. Springfield Hosp. Ctr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145275, at *8 (D. Md. Oct. 19, 2016) (Judge Hollander) (citations omitted) (same); Frazier v. Donahoe, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33634, at *8-9 (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2016) (Judge Grimm) (citations omitted) (same). 1 A plaintiff’s EEOC filings may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Garrison v. McCormick & Co. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64920, at *4 n.2 (D. Md. June 30, 2010) (citations omitted). Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 6 of 14 7 Shedrick’s complaint focuses on her employment status -- whether she was part-time (adjunct) or full-time -- and alleges that she was accommodated when teaching as a full-time faculty member. Shedrick also alleges that she taught only online courses as an adjunct professor, and she needed no accommodation to teach in that capacity. Further, Shedrick attached to her complaint a spring 2015 email exchange in which she says that the accommodation she needed was “to teach online.” Doc. 1-1. The exhibits attached to this memorandum go to the very heart of the allegations in Shedrick’s lawsuit. The exhibits show that Shedrick was an adjunct professor who was hired on an emergency basis as a full-time faculty member. Exs. 1 and 2. The exhibits also show that Shedrick did not apply for full-time vacancies after her fixed-term appointments expired on May 21, 2015. Exs. 3, 4, 5, and 6. Shedrick’s own exhibit shows that she considered herself an adjunct professor. See ECF Doc 1-1. The Court may consider the documents attached to this memorandum without converting this motion into one for summary judgment. See Phillips, 572 F.3d at 180; see also Wood v. Bd. of Educ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136512, at *8-9 (D. Md. Sep. 30, 2016) (Judge Hazel) (citations omitted); Reed v. Maryland, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17761, at *12-15 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2013) (Judge Hollander) (citations omitted). IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007) (a complaint must contain “enough facts to state Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 7 of 14 8 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a “plaintiff . . . allege facts that support [each element] of a claim for relief.” Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003). It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege only that some unidentified individuals were treated more favorably. See Murphy v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18308, at *6-7 (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2017) (Judge Bennett). The purpose of a 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). A sufficient showing requires something more than “blanket assertions” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3. A complaint, therefore, must consist of more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court must “accept the well-pled allegations of the complaint as true,” and construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). The Court, however, is not required to accept unsupported legal allegations, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, or “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions or arguments.” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). Nor is the Court required to accept conclusory factual allegations lacking reference to actual events. Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs. Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d 740, 743 (D. Md. 2010) (Judge Chasanow) (citations omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint has not shown that “the pleader is entitled Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 8 of 14 9 to relief.” Prelich v. Medical Res. Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 654, 660 (D. Md. 2011) (Judge Hollander) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). V. LEGAL ANALYSIS.2 1. Shedrick’s Failure To Accommodate Claim Should Be Dismissed. In Count I, Shedrick claims that the College failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. Yet, Shedrick alleges that PGCC provided her with an accommodation when one was necessary -- namely, the two semester period when she taught as a full-time faculty member. Shedrick did not need an accommodation after the spring 2015 semester, when her non-renewable fixed term appointment expired. Once her full-time appointment expired, Shedrick did not apply for the full-time openings for psychology professors, but continued her relationship with the College as an adjunct professor by teaching exclusively online, which she could do without accommodation. See C ¶¶ 32-38. A prima facie case of failure to accommodate requires an employee to sufficiently allege that: (1) she was an individual with a disability within the meaning of the statute; (2) the employer had notice of her disability; (3) with reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of the position; and (4) the 2 Shedrick’s ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and state law claims are analyzed under the same framework. See Brady v. Bd. of Educ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170434, at *11-12 (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2016) (Judge Hazel) (citing Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty., 789 F.3d 407. 413-14 (4th Cir. 2015); Caire v. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160215, at *43-44 (D. Md. Nov. 8, 2013) (Judge Bennett) (citations omitted) (recognizing the similarity between ADA and Maryland law). Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 9 of 14 10 employer refused to make such accommodations. See Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337, 345 (4th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The focus of the College’s motion to dismiss is the fourth element of Shedrick’s prima facie case. By definition, the College did not refuse to make an accommodation. See Insalaco v. Anne Arundel Co. Pub. Schs, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9110, at *9-10 (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2012) (Judge Bredar) (citation omitted) (“[A]n employee who denies that she requires a reasonable accommodation cannot then claim that her employer refused to accommodate her disability.”). Shedrick admits that the College accommodated her alleged disability when she held a full-time position, and that she did not need an accommodation as an adjunct professor because she could teach exclusively online as an adjunct. For that reason alone, the failure to accommodate claim should be dismissed. See id. at *9-11 (plaintiff’s admission that she could perform the adjunct professorship without accommodation “bars her from alleging later that” she needed an accommodation). Shedrick admits that she could meet the requirements of being an adjunct professor without accommodation because she was not required to teach an onsite course. C ¶¶ 12-14, 17-21. Shedrick, therefore, did not need an accommodation when serving as an adjunct. See C ¶¶ 12-14, 17-21. Stated differently, Shedrick needed an accommodation only when she was employed as a full-time faculty member, which was between August 2014 and May 2015. See C ¶¶ 12-14, 17-21. Shedrick admits that the College accommodated her during this period. C ¶¶ 19-25. There was no failure to accommodate. Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 10 of 14 11 2. Shedrick Did Not Exhaust Administrative Remedies For Her ADA And FEPA Disability Discrimination Claims.3 Under Maryland’s anti-discrimination law and the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20- 1013; COMAR § 14.03.01.14(B); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); see also Md. Comm’n on Human Relations v. Downey Commc’ns, Inc., 678 A.2d 55, 72-74 (Md. App. 1996). “A plaintiff’s claims in her judicial complaint must be reasonably related to her EEOC charge such that they would be developed by reasonable investigation of the original charge.” Covington v. Target Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137810, at *14-15 (D. Md. Sept. 24, 2013) (Judge Quarles) (citations omitted). Where “the administrative charge ‘references[s] different time frames, actors, and discriminatory conduct than the central factual allegations in [the] formal suit[,]’” there is no administrative exhaustion with respect to claims that are beyond the scope of the charge. See id. at *16 (quoting Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 506- 09 (4th Cir. 2005)). Count II of the complaint alleges discriminatory discharge. In her EEOC Charge, however, Shedrick did not make any claim about being terminated because of her disability. Thus, Shedrick’s disability discrimination claim under FEPA and the ADA are beyond the scope of the underlying charge and should be dismissed. See, e.g., 3 Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Clarke v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 962 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786-87 (D. Md. 2013) (Judge Motz). Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 11 of 14 12 Chacko, 429 F.3d at 509 (dismissing claim in civil suit that was not reasonably related to allegations in administrative charge concerning different forms of conduct); Rohan v. Network Presentation LLC, 175 F. Supp. 2d 806, 810 (D. Md. 2001) (Judge Motz) (dismissing claim where reasonable accommodation was not included in EEOC charge). 3. Shedrick Has Not Stated A Discriminatory Discharge Claim. A discriminatory discharge claim requires a plaintiff to sufficiently allege that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was performing her job duties at a level that met her employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) the discharge occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. See Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 572 (4th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). “The central focus of the inquiry is whether the employer has treated ‘some people less favorably than others because of their [disability].’” Brown v. Balt. Police Dep’t, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147219, at *25 (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2011) (Judge Bennett) (citation omitted). Shedrick has not stated a plausible discriminatory discharge claim under the ADA, Maryland law, or the Rehabilitation Act. Shedrick alleges that she informed the College of her need for an accommodation prior to the fall 2014 semester and again in May 2015, and that she was fired after the fall 2016 semester. C ¶¶ 15-19, 39. She then conclusorily alleges that: (1) “Defendant’s actions of terminating Plaintiff’s Full-Time status was causally connected to her disability;” and (2) “[s]imilarly situated employees outside of [her] protected class were not treated” as she was. C ¶¶ 54-57. These bare allegations, which consist of nothing more than a recitation of the elements of a cause of Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 12 of 14 13 action, are not sufficient to support an inference that Shedrick was fired because of her alleged disability. See Sharma v. Howard Cty., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18890, at *17-18 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2013) (Judge Bredar) (dismissing disability discrimination claim where plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of discrimination claim that did not satisfy pleading standards). Shedrick’s spring 2015 fixed-term contract, moreover, definitively establishes that the reason her full-time status ended was because her contract expired, and for no other reason. Without the requisite supporting factual allegations, Shedrick’s discrimination claim “do[es] not rise above speculation.” See Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 2010), affirmed on other grounds by, 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (conclusory allegations of disparate treatment do not satisfy pleading standards); see also Cepada v. Bd. of Educ. of Baltimore Cnty., 814 F. Supp. 2d 500, 510 (D. Md. 2011) (Judge Quarles) (same). Shedrick’s disability discrimination claim should be dismissed. Jeffries v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95051, at *13-15 (D. Md. July 11, 2016) (Judge Hazel) (citations omitted) (dismissing ADA discharge claim did not contain sufficient factual allegations). 4. Shedrick’s ADA Claims Are Barred By The Eleventh Amendment. Counts I and II, to the extent they are brought under the ADA, are barred by the College’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, which has not been abrogated for ADA employment discrimination claims. See Cook v. Springfield Hosp. Ctr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145275, at *12-17 (D. Md. Oct. 19, 2016) (Judge Hollander) (citations omitted). Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 13 of 14 14 The College is unquestionably an arm of the state and, therefore, Shedrick’s ADA claims must be dismissed. See id. (discussing Eleventh Amendment immunity); Adams v. Montgomery Coll., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71311, at *10-11 (D. Md. July 15, 2010) (Judge Chasanow) (citations omitted) (Maryland community colleges are state entities for sovereign immunity purposes). VI. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, Shedrick’s claims should be dismissed and judgment should be granted in favor of Defendant Prince George’s Community College on both counts. Respectfully submitted, /s/ J. Garrett Wozniak Clifford B. Geiger, #15549 J. Garrett Wozniak, #18919 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. The Business Law Building 1823 York Road Timonium, Maryland 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300 Fax: 410-727-4391 gwozniak@kollmanlaw.com /s/ V. Daniel Palumbo V. Daniel Palumbo, #04007 Palumbo Law Group, LLC 10905 Fort Washington Road, Suite 103 Fort Washington, Maryland 20744 Phone: 301-292-8300 Fax: 301-292-3434 Counsel for Defendant Prince George’s Community College Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 14 of 14 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-2 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-2 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-3 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-3 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-4 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 5 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-4 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 5 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-4 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 5 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-4 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 5 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-4 Filed 02/28/17 Page 5 of 5 Good morning all, The Department of Psychological and Sociological Sciences announces two full‐ me faculty posi ons in psychology. The posi on announcement bulle n can be accessed via the below link: h ps://pgcc.peopleadmin.com/pos ngs/4333 Those interested in applying must do so via the online applica on process therein. The applica on closes on June 10, 2015. All the best, Sonia R. Bell, M.S.Ed. Associate Professor Ac ng Chair Department of Psychological & Sociological Sciences Prince George's Community College Marlboro Hall Rm. 2025 301 Largo Rd. Largo, MD 20774 301‐341‐3065 (o) Sonia R Bell Thu 5/28/2015 11:24 AM To:Angela Taylor ; Anika Hunter ; April L Davis ; 'Brandi Cage' ; Brandi N King ; Clara A Russell ; Cristi D Ford ; David H Graham ; Deirdre Thompson ; Edward A Muhammad ; Harriet E Bernola ; Hiram E Jennings ; Ilene D Payne ; Janet E Barber ; Janice A Armstrong ; Jo-Anne L Manswell Butty ; Judy M Dubose PhD ; Kevin L Mungin ; Latoya Nkongolo ; Leon M Wilson ; Lestine Shedrick ; Loretta E Baum ; Malinda R Mottenon-Thompson ; Marc D Lee Sr. ; Marisha P Wright ; Matthew E Vialva ; Maurice A Gatling ; Paul Van Cleef ; Paula Ilochi ; Persephone T Brown ; Rose Mary A Bunag ; Shannon R Williams ; Sokoyama K Songu-Mbriwa ; Sophia A Ogunlana ; Stephanie S Pair ; Tedra E Jamison ; Torea M Chancellor ; Trevor A Liburd ; Victoria C Taylor ; Importance: High Announcement Re: Full-time Faculty Positions in Psychology - Lestine Sh... https://outlook.office.com/owa/shedrilx@pgcc.edu/?viewmodel=ReadMe... 1 of 1 2/22/2017 10:13 AM Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-5 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 1 Hello all, This email serves as a reminder that all applications for the full time faculty in psychology positions are due by close of business on Wednesday, June 10th. The posi on announcement bulle n can be accessed via the below link: h ps://pgcc.peopleadmin.com/pos ngs/4333 Best, Sonia R. Bell, M.S.Ed. Associate Professor Chair Department of Psychological & Sociological Sciences Prince George's Community College Marlboro Hall Rm. 2025 301 Largo Rd. Largo, MD 20774 301‐341‐3065 (o) Sonia R Bell Mon 6/8/2015 4:06 PM To:Angela Taylor ; Anika Hunter ; April L Davis ; 'Brandi Cage' ; Brandi N King ; Clara A Russell ; Cristi D Ford ; David H Graham ; Deirdre Thompson ; Edward A Muhammad ; Harriet E Bernola ; Hiram E Jennings ; Ilene D Payne ; Janet E Barber ; Janice A Armstrong ; Jo-Anne L Manswell Butty ; Judy M Dubose PhD ; Kevin L Mungin ; Latoya Nkongolo ; Leon M Wilson ; Lestine Shedrick ; Loretta E Baum ; Malinda R Mottenon-Thompson ; Marc D Lee Sr. ; Marisha P Wright ; Matthew E Vialva ; Maurice A Gatling ; Paul Van Cleef ; Paula Ilochi ; Persephone T Brown ; Rose Mary A Bunag ; Shannon R Williams ; Sokoyama K Songu-Mbriwa ; Sophia A Ogunlana ; Stephanie S Pair ; Tedra E Jamison ; Torea M Chancellor ; Trevor A Liburd ; Victoria C Taylor ; Bcc:Lorraine P Bassette ; Importance: High Reminder: PSY FT Faculty Applications - Sonia R Bell https://outlook.office.com/owa/bellsk@pgcc.edu/?viewmodel=ReadMess... 1 of 1 2/22/2017 10:19 AM Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-6 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 1 Les ne Shedrick, Ed.D Adjunct Professor Marlboro Hall, Rm 2054 301‐322‐0990 shedrilx@pgcc.edu Prince George's Community College 301 Largo Rd. Largo, Maryland, 20774 301‐336.6000. www.pgcc.edu From: Les ne Shedrick Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:11 PM To: Sonia R Bell Cc: Lorraine P Basse e Subject: Re: Courses Hi Professor Bell and Dr. Basse e. This is a formal request for a mee ng in reference to my employment, failure to no fy me of my changing status and accommoda ons by law. I spoke to Professor Bell in May 2015 about my accommoda on issues and employment and if there would be a problem to respond at that me. There was no response from her and I was told by her that I would be full me in the Fall of 2015, but, I needed to teach a 15 week face to face class. In fact, I have an email sta ng this informa on. I did not apply for the full me posi on because, they stated pending funding and next, professor bell in her stated email was that I was full me. I have tried to contact professor Bell on various occasions in the last two months with no response. My contract was not a fixed year, it was pending funding for the next year. If the terms of my employment was changing, I should have been no fied in the correspondence in May 2015 and with reasons. I am qualified to teach such courses. Lestine Shedrick Thu 8/13/2015 10:53 AM Sent Items To:lshedrick@hotmail.com ; Fw: Courses - Lestine Shedrick https://outlook.office.com/owa/shedrilx@pgcc.edu/?viewmodel=ReadMe... 1 of 4 2/22/2017 10:09 AM Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-7 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 4 Les ne Shedrick, Ed.D Adjunct Professor Marlboro Hall, Rm 2054 301‐322‐0990 shedrilx@pgcc.edu Prince George's Community College 301 Largo Rd. Largo, Maryland, 20774 301‐336.6000. www.pgcc.edu From: Sonia R Bell Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:13 PM To: Les ne Shedrick Cc: Lorraine P Basse e Subject: RE: Courses Hi Les ne, You were hired on a one year fixed term contract. The posi on was adver sed and full me faculty members have been hired. I will do my best to accommodate with the courses you were offered. We appreciate your con nued commitment to our students. From: Les ne Shedrick Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:27 PM To: Sonia R Bell Subject: Re: Courses HI Sonia. It was my understanding that I would have four classes to teach. It is also my understanding that I would be full me in fall as per an email from you 2015. I thought full me employees teach 4 classes. Maybe, I am mistaken. The HY01 1010 course only has two students at present Les ne. Les ne Shedrick, Ed.D Adjunct Professor Marlboro Hall, Rm 2054 301‐322‐0990 shedrilx@pgcc.edu Prince George's Community College 301 Largo Rd. Largo, Maryland, 20774 301‐336.6000. www.pgcc.edu Fw: Courses - Lestine Shedrick https://outlook.office.com/owa/shedrilx@pgcc.edu/?viewmodel=ReadMe... 2 of 4 2/22/2017 10:09 AM Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-7 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 4 From: Sonia R Bell Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:43 PM To: Les ne Shedrick Subject: RE: Courses Hi Les ne, The face to face PSY 2010 is not available. I cannot add PSY 2010 as a hybrid to the schedule because there is an approval process for that. You have been assigned 3 courses. Will you s ll be able to teach them? Let me know. Thanks. From: Les ne Shedrick Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 7:12 PM To: Sonia R Bell Subject: Re: Courses HI Sonia. I signed up for an addi onal online course 1010 per your request to fill and asked whether the opened 2010 can accommodate a hybrid schedule so I can teach the last one that is opened. Les ne Les ne Shedrick, Ed.D Adjunct Professor Marlboro Hall, Rm 2054 301‐322‐0990 shedrilx@pgcc.edu Prince George's Community College 301 Largo Rd. Largo, Maryland, 20774 301‐336.6000. www.pgcc.edu From: Sonia R Bell Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 3:47 PM To: Les ne Shedrick Subject: RE: Courses Hi Les ne, I did not see an email from you. I will search for it shortly. What is your ques on about the fall schedule? From: Les ne Shedrick Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:23 PM To: Sonia R Bell Subject: Courses Fw: Courses - Lestine Shedrick https://outlook.office.com/owa/shedrilx@pgcc.edu/?viewmodel=ReadMe... 3 of 4 2/22/2017 10:09 AM Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-7 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 4 Hi Sonia. I know you are busy, but I am feeling a li le neglected. I sent an email reques ng some informa on and I have not heard from you. I am the neglected child ( Smiles). Trying to develop my schedule for the fall. Les ne Les ne Shedrick, Ed.D Adjunct Professor Marlboro Hall, Rm 2054 301‐322‐0990 shedrilx@pgcc.edu Prince George's Community College 301 Largo Rd. Largo, Maryland, 20774 301‐336.6000. www.pgcc.edu Fw: Courses - Lestine Shedrick https://outlook.office.com/owa/shedrilx@pgcc.edu/?viewmodel=ReadMe... 4 of 4 2/22/2017 10:09 AM Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-7 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 4 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-8 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2 Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-8 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LESTINE SHEDRICK * Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: 8:16-CV-04127-GJH PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY * COLLEGE et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * DEFENDANT PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE’S REQUEST FOR HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Defendant Prince George’s Community College, by counsel and pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, hereby requests a hearing on its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Respectfully submitted, /s/ J. Garrett Wozniak Clifford B. Geiger, #15549 J. Garrett Wozniak, #18919 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. The Business Law Building 1823 York Road Timonium, Maryland 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300 Fax: 410-727-4391 gwozniak@kollmanlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Prince George’s Community College Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-9 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2 2 /s/ V. Daniel Palumbo V. Daniel Palumbo, #04007 Palumbo Law Group, LLC 10905 Fort Washington Road, Suite 103 Fort Washington, Maryland 20744 Phone: 301-292-8300 Fax: 301-292-3434 Counsel for Defendant Prince George’s Community College Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-9 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LESTINE SHEDRICK * Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: 8:16-CV-04127-GJH PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY * COLLEGE et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant Prince George’s Community College’s Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, any opposition thereto, and for good cause shown, it is this day of , 2017 hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Prince George’s Community College’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED. ____________________________________ George Jarrod Hazel United States District Court Judge Case 8:16-cv-04127-GJH Document 11-10 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 1