Wedderburn v. Bd. of Educ. of Balt. Cnty.

2 Citing cases

  1. Hanson-Hodge v. Kijakazi

    CIVIL 22-2818-BAH (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Plaintiff adequately alleges that her OPS plan enrollment constituted a materially adverse action. While “poor performance evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse action unless those evaluations are used ‘to detrimentally alter the terms or conditions of the recipient's employment,'” Wedderburn v. Bd. of Educ. of Balt. Cnty., No. 8:19-CV-00215-PX, 2022 WL 504511, at *13 (D. Md. Feb. 18, 2022) (quoting James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 368 F.3d 371, 377 (4th Cir. 2004)), here Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support that her placement on an OPS plan was sufficient to deter a reasonable employee from pursuing protected action. The record reflects that placement on an OPS leads to a variety of consequences including being disqualified from overtime opportunities, being unable to receive WIGI pay raises, being disqualified from her branch's exemption to furlough, and being disqualified from promotional opportunities and awards. ECF 20-12 (2013 OPS Plan), at 7. Plaintiff was also terminated from the SSA at the end of her OPS plan. ECF 20-19.

  2. Nguyen v. Yellen

    Civil Action 8:18-cv-00492-PX (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2023)

    Likewise, “[i]t is well settled that a reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to either (1) create a position that does not exist; or (2) bump an existing employee from a position to accommodate the disabled employee.” See Wedderburn v. Bd. of Educ. of Baltimore Cnty., No. 19-cv-215, 2022 WL 504511, at *9 (D. Md. Feb. 18, 2022) (citing Perdue v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, 999 F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir. 2021)).