Opinion
Civil Action ELH-21-1209
09-15-2023
DANIKA YAMPIERRE, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge.
In this employment discrimination case, Sergeant (“Sgt.”) Danika Yampierre, plaintiff, asserts a host of claims against the Baltimore Police Department (the “BPD”), defendant. The claims are predicated on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.; the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“FEPA”), Maryland Code (2021 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.), § 20-601 of the State Government Article (“S.G.”); the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”). Id. at 63.
The Second Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. ECF 24 (the “SAC”). Sgt. Yampierre seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, “back pay and compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000,000,” and attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 67.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. ECF 25. The motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 25-1) (collectively, the “Motion”), and seven exhibits. ECF 25-5 to ECF 258; ECF 26-1 to ECF 26-3 (under seal). Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 32), supported by a memorandum. ECF 32-1 (collectively, the “Opposition”). Defendant replied. ECF 35.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Procedural Background
Yampierre's original Complaint, filed on May 17, 2021, contained nine counts. See ECF 1. In particular, Sgt. Yampierre lodged five claims under Title VII: discrimination on the basis of race (Count I); discrimination on the basis of sex (Count II); “sexual harassment (hostile work environment)” (Count III); retaliation (Count IV); and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy (Count IX). Id. at 28-38, 43. The original Complaint also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count V); the Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq. (Count VI); the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Count VII); and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, S.G. § 20-601 et seq. (Count VIII). ECF 1 at 38-42.
Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). ECF 7. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 11) and Order (ECF 12) of August 18, 2022, I dismissed Counts I, VIII, and IX, without prejudice. I denied the motion as to Count II, to the extent that it was based upon plaintiff's allegations of sexual harassment, but otherwise granted the motion as to Count II, without prejudice. I denied the motion as to Count III. And, I denied the motion as to Count IV, to the extent that it was predicated on plaintiff's job transfer, the loss of supervisory duties, the initiation of internal investigations about plaintiff, and any criminal investigation that followed. But, I otherwise granted the motion as to Count IV, without prejudice, and I granted the motion, with prejudice, as to Counts V, VI, and VII. As to Counts I, II, IV, VIII, and IX, I granted plaintiff leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a “First Amended Complaint” on September 8, 2022. ECF 13. Shortly thereafter, on October 24, 2022, the parties filed a “joint motion to stay proceedings,” pending plaintiff's anticipated receipt of a right to sue letter from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See ECF 17. I granted the motion to stay. ECF 18. The SAC followed on January 12, 2023. ECF 24.
The SAC contains eight counts. See ECF 24. Specifically, plaintiff has lodged five claims under Title VII: discrimination on the basis of race (Count I); discrimination on the basis of sex (Count II); sexual harassment (hostile work environment) (Count III); retaliation (Count IV); and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy (Count VI). She also asserts a claim of interference (Count VII) and retaliation (Count VIII) in violation of the FMLA, as well as a claim under the FEPA (Count V).
Defendant has moved to dismiss all but Count III of the SAC, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. ECF 25. Count III is not in issue.
II. Factual Background
Sgt. Yampierre, an “African American female,” ECF 24, ¶ 14, “has been employed by [the BPD] from August 15, 2006 until present, as a Detective Sergeant.” Id. ¶ 22. Since May 2013, plaintiff has worked at the BPD's “Headquarters/City Hall Security Unit” (the “Unit”) and, while serving in this capacity, she has “received consistent and continuous excellent remarks on her performance evaluations ....” Id. ¶ 23. She asserts that she has “consistently been the target of race and sex discrimination, retaliation, pregnancy disability and workplace hostility.” Id. ¶ 104. Moreover, she complains that she was denied twelve weeks of FMLA leave in 2020. Id. ¶ 109. Further, she complains that she was wrongfully accused of medical leave abuse, and was harassed in regard to a line-of-duty injury and other medical issues. Id. ¶110; see also id. ¶¶ 113-117, 123.
Sgt. Yampierre recounts that she experienced difficulty in supervising one of the officers under her command, Officer Abdulsalam Ajikobi. See id. ¶¶ 25-27. In particular, on an unspecified date in March 2019, Officer Ajikobi “had a heated verbal altercation” with Officer Teddy Parris. Id. ¶ 26. Thereafter, Officer Parris “informed Plaintiff that Officer Ajikobi was creating a hostile work environment and that he did not want to have any other interactions with Officer Ajikobi going forward.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that she “attempted to reconcile this issue ....” Id.
Also in March 2019, Lieutenant (“Lt.”) Deanna Effland was “assigned” to the Unit. Id. ¶ 24. From the context, it appears that Lt. Effland was Sgt. Yampierre's supervisor. See, e.g., id. ¶ 38 (describing Lt. Effland as the “commander of the unit”). Plaintiff advised Lt. Effland of her difficulty in supervising Officer Ajikobi. Id. ¶ 25. She also informed Lt. Effland that “many of the unit's issues stemmed from [Officer Ajikobi's] insubordination and noncompliance.” Id.
As discussed, infra, at this juncture I must assume the truth of the facts alleged in the suit. See Fusaro v. Cogan, 930 F.3d 241, 248 (4th Cir. 2019).
On or about April 23, 2019, Officer Ajikobi had a second “heated verbal altercation with two [BPD] officers,” including Officer Parris. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff claims that she “documented the incident and reported it to Lt. Effland.” Id. Moreover, she asserts that she “attempted to schedule mediation between the three officers, however, Officer Ajikobi refused to attend.” Id. Accordingly, plaintiff “informed Lt. Effland of the steps she took to mediate and resolve this issue and assured Lt. Effland that she would follow up with Officer Ajikobi about possible resolutions.” Id.
During the weeks that followed, Sgt. Yampierre “waited . . . for Lt. Effland to provide any advice or guidance on how she would like to proceed with this issue,” but Lt. Effland failed to provide guidance. Id. Meanwhile, plaintiff “continued to receive inquiries from the involved officers about the outcome” of their dispute. Id.
“On or around May 3, 2019, Plaintiff reconvened with Lt. Effland regarding the previous incident to inquire about the next steps in the process.” Id. ¶ 28. According to plaintiff, Lt. Effland failed to “diffuse [sic] the situation” and, instead, “boasted about how Officer Ajikobi gifted her a unique bottle of wine.” Id. According to plaintiff, Lt. Effland “had no plans for how to reprimand Officer Ajikobi.” Id.
In June 2019, Sgt. Yampierre “attempted to once again inquire [of Lt. Effland] about any next steps regarding the altercation[s]” involving Officer Ajikobi. Id. ¶ 30. But, Lt. Effland again “dismissed the Plaintiff and her efforts to find a resolution.” Id. To the contrary, “after speaking with Office Ajikobi, Lt. Effland began working against the Plaintiff and her role as Sergeant in her unit.” Id. Specifically, Lt. Effland held “private meetings with officers in the unit, without having Plaintiff, their direct supervisor, present.” Id. Further, Lt. Effland “encouraged officers to skip the line of command whenever they request leave or overtime, so that they would go directly to Lt. Effland instead of the Plaintiff.” Id. Lt. Effland also held “private meetings” with another BPD officer, Sgt. Marlon McEntyre, “to discuss the unit's next phase in an effort to ostracize and alienate the Plaintiff from her coworkers.” Id.; see id. ¶ 97 (stating Sgt. McEntyre's first name).
On an unspecified date in July 2019, “Lt. Effland was again informed about Officer Ajikobi's continuing insubordinate and dangerous behavior.” Id. ¶ 32.But, rather than “address[ ] this issue, Lt. Effland informed Officer Ajikobi that the Plaintiff was targeting him and had an objective to have him removed from the unit.” Id. ¶ 32.
In the interim, around mid June 2019, “Lt. Effland relinquished the Plaintiff's duty of organizing and completing the unit's officer schedules, which had been her responsibility for four (4) years.” Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff asserts that Lt. Effland reserved this responsibility to herself so that she could “schedule herself and officers she favored in the unit to coveted shift times.” Id.
Of import here, plaintiff alleges: “Before Lt. Effland's arrival, Lieutenants were not permitted to work overtime as it drained the budget.” Id. But, after divesting plaintiff of the authority to organize shift schedules, “Lt. Effland approved herself” and officers she favored, including Lt. Brian Pearson, “for overtime shifts.” Id. Additionally, “Lt. Effland altered the schedule to operate on a Monday-Friday week,” over plaintiff's objection and “contrary to Departmental policy and practice.” Id.
Also in June 2019, plaintiff learned that she was pregnant. Id. ¶ 29. On August 27, 2019, she “notified her immediate supervisors Lt. Deanna Effland and Lt. Brian Pearson of her pregnancy” and she “specifically mention[ed] the high risks associated with her pregnancy so that they could understand the necessity of her being able [to] attend doctor's appointments at different times of the day.” Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff explains that in May 2013, she “was diagnosed with a line of duty high blood pressure injury that placed her in a high risk category for pregnancy.” Id.
In August 2019, an unidentified individual “requested” BPD's Internal Affairs Integrity Unit (“Internal Affairs” or “IAD”) “to investigate Lt. Effland for misuse of overtime.” Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff maintains that she was not the source of the complaint. Id. ¶ 35. But, on August 28, 2019, Lt. Effland received an anonymous phone call, advising her that Sgt. Yampierre had “visited Internal Affairs and filed a complaint against Lt. Effland regarding misuse of overtime and that [plaintiff] had provided a statement detailing these accusations.” Id.
“Lt. Effland became upset and ordered the Plaintiff into her office to discuss this leaked information ....” Id. Thereafter, Lt. Effland “proceeded to chastise and berate Plaintiff about why she reported her to Internal Affairs and demanded to know why the Plaintiff had not informed Lt. Effland prior to reporting her, even though the Plaintiff had advised Lt. Effland that she did not file a complaint against her.” Id. Even so, Lt. Effland “aggressively question[ed]” plaintiff about the IAD complaint. Id. Sgt. Yampierre's refusal to respond allegedly made Lt. Effland “even more agitated” and she attempted “to intimidate the Plaintiff in an effort to encourage a response.” Id.
Thereafter, “Lt. Effland called the unit's Civilian Director Randolph Reynolds and informed him that a meeting needed to be scheduled between him, Lt. Effland, and the Plaintiff to determine the basis for which the Plaintiff reported Lt. Effland to Internal Affairs.” Id. ¶ 36. Plaintiff asserts that “this action [was] against department policy as the Plaintiff engaged in protected activity.” Id. “However, Director Reynolds agreed with Lt. Effland and ordered the Plaintiff to meet with him ....” Id. Plaintiff told Lt. Effland that “she would attend the meeting, but that she would not respond to any inquiries about what she reported to Internal Affairs.” Id.
Sgt. Yampierre “immediately contacted” Sgt. Anthony Faulk of Internal Affairs “to report this interaction.” Id. “Sgt. Faulk advised Plaintiff to document this interaction in an administrative report and submit it to Internal Affairs ....” Id. Plaintiff states that she followed Sgt. Faulk's directive. Id.
The following day, August 29, 2019, IAD staff “visited Plaintiff's unit to collect Lt. Effland's departmental phone so that they could determine who called Lt. Effland and leaked information from the Internal Affairs Integrity Unit to her.” Id. ¶ 37. Lt. Effland was “visibly upset” with plaintiff. Id. At that juncture, Lt. Effland approached plaintiff and another BPD officer and declared: “‘I'm having a fucking four-day weekend off.'” Id. Lt. Effland then “erase[d] her name from the Overtime post in which she had scheduled herself to work that following weekend” and “demanded that the Plaintiff find her a replacement with less than 24 hours-notice.” Id. ¶ 38.
Plaintiff responded that it was Lt. Effland's responsibility to find her own replacement. Id. However, “[i]n a clear effort to retaliate against the Plaintiff,” Lt. Effland stated that, if Sgt. Yampierre failed to find a replacement for her shift, “Lt. Effland would draft the Plaintiff to work Lt. Effland's scheduled overtime hours.” Id. Moreover, Lt. Effland threatened to alter plaintiff's regularly scheduled shift, which had been 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for the past eight years, to 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Id. Sgt. Yampierre advised Lt. Effland that her behavior amounted to an “abuse of discretion and a clear violation of the police officers [sic] FOP contract.” Id.But, Lt. Effland “reiterated that Plaintiff will be working the new shift to cover her overtime ....” Id.
Lt. Effland then sent an email to Director Reynolds, advising that plaintiff will “cover Lt. Effland's overtime, in lieu of working her regular hours, and that Lt. Brian Pearson will work overtime to fill the Plaintiff's regularly scheduled shift.” Id. ¶ 38. Plaintiff “immediately contacted” IAD “to inform them of this retaliatory behavior.” Id. At the direction of IAD, plaintiff promptly filed a report. Id.
The following day, August 30, 2019, Lt. Effland did not report for her assigned overtime shift, which she had previously “scheduled for herself.” Id. ¶ 39. As a result, plaintiff had “to find a replacement to cover the shift,” as “Lt. Effland had abandoned her post without finding a replacement beforehand.” Id. Ultimately, BPD Officer Charles Green “volunteered . . . to cover Lt. Effland's vacant shift.” Id.
Later that day, Lt. Effland sent an email to Officer Green, “advising him to leave his post at City Hall and write a report about how the Plaintiff demanded that he work past his shift.” Id. ¶ 40. Officer Green “immediately contacted the Plaintiff to inquire about what he should do.” Id. Plaintiff “advised Officer Green to not leave his post at City Hall and [stated] that she will contact Director Reynolds about Lt. Effland's conduct.” Id. Director Reynolds subsequently emailed Lt. Effland, “informing her that no officer would be asked to leave their assigned post to write a report and that if she needed something completed, she needed to inform Director Reynolds and not the individual officer.” Id.
Lt. Effland subsequently “attempted to charge the Plaintiff with insubordination for not working past her shift to cover for Lt. Effland's abandoned shift.” Id.Plaintiff “reported the entire incident” to IAD and “[l]ater that day, Director Reynolds informed Plaintiff that Lt. Effland would be removed from the unit due to her behavior and misconduct.” Id.
On September 3, 2019, Lt. Brian Pearson was “assigned” to the Unit “to replace Lt. Effland.” Id. ¶ 41. At that time, Sgt. Yampierre “attended a meeting with Lt. Pearson and Sgt. McEntyre to discuss the ongoing issues in the Unit that were primarily being caused by Officer Ajikobi.” Id. Lt. Pearson “assured” plaintiff and Sgt. McEntyre “that he would investigate these claims further.” Id. And, later that day, Lt. Pearson sought to discuss with plaintiff “the basis for Lt. Effland's transfer out of the unit, since Lt. Effland had told him a different narrative.” Id. However, plaintiff “refused to discuss the details of Lt. Effland's transfer since the Internal Affairs investigation was ongoing.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Lt. Pearson met with Officer Ajikobi on September 4, 2019, and “advised him to file” a complaint against plaintiff with the EEOC “before she had the opportunity to remove him from the unit.” Id. ¶ 42. The following day, plaintiff received a call from Sgt. Freda Arrington, who, according to plaintiff, is associated with the EEOC. Id. ¶ 43. Sgt. Arrington informed plaintiff “that Officer Ajikobi had filed an EEOC complaint against” her and asked plaintiff if she would be “interested in attending mediation.” Id. Plaintiff “agreed.” Id.
Plaintiff, Officer Ajikobi, Sgt. Arrington, and Sgt. McEntyre attended a mediation on September 6, 2019, to find an “amicable solution.” Id. ¶ 44. Sgt. Arrington informed Officer Ajikobi that “his complaint against the Plaintiff was not considered an EEOC case ....” Id. During the meeting, Officer Ajikobi “became visibly upset and agitated” because plaintiff “had documentation to refute his claims.” Id. Officer Ajikobi also stated that “he had only filed an EEOC complaint because Lt. Pearson advised him to,” because plaintiff was “working to have [Officer Ajikobi] removed from the unit.” Id. Sgt. Arrington allegedly told Ajikobi “that his claims were not valid and that he needed to follow orders to prevent future disagreements.” Id.
Approximately one week later, on September 13, 2019, Officer Ajikobi “filed a complaint with Internal Affairs alleging the same facts” as set forth in his EEOC complaint. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff asserts that “Officer Ajikobi filed this complaint in response to Lt. Pearson being told that the EEOC complaint was not valid.” Id.
According to plaintiff, because Officer Ajikobi had a “close relationship” with Major (“Maj.”) Stephanie Lansey, the Commander of IAD, his complaint “was expedited through the system, and [Officer Ajikobi] was able to complete an interview the same day.” Id. Also on September 13, 2019, Detective Anita Pitts, from IAD, contacted plaintiff for the purpose of serving her with the complaint and other papers related to Officer Ajikobi's complaint. Id.; see id. ¶ 64 (specifying Detective Pitts's first name).
Approximately two weeks later, on September 25, 2019, plaintiff attended a meeting with Lt. Pearson, Sgt. McEntyre, and Director Reynolds, at which she and Sgt. McEntyre informed Lt. Pearson and Director Reynolds “of the issues they had been trying to resolve with Officer Ajikobi.” Id. ¶ 46. Director Reynolds requested documentation to substantiate these assertions. Id. On September 30, 2019, plaintiff “emailed all the documentation of Officer Ajikobi's alleged misconduct and insubordination to Lt. Pearson and Director Reynolds.” Id. ¶ 49. Director Reynolds “replied by thanking [plaintiff] and stating that he will discuss the documents with Lt. Pearson.” Id. However, plaintiff asserts that Director Reynolds never “followed up with her.” Id.
In the interim, on or around September 25, 2019, Sgt. Yampierre “submitted a second written notification regarding her pregnancy and the importance of her attending her scheduled doctors' appointments.” Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff claims, id.: “Lt. Pearson acknowledged this notification and replied that he supports her, cares about her health, and will ensure that the unit is covered before she departs for each appointment.”
Plaintiff alleges that in October 2019, while she awaited a decision from Director Reynolds regarding Officer Ajikobi, “Lt. Pearson began sexually harassing the Plaintiff” and another BPD officer, Sgt. Leslie Williams. Id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff asserts: “Lt. Pearson would often ask the Plaintiff and Sgt. Williams to go out with him after work because he was lonely after his most recent relationship ended.” Id.According to plaintiff, both she and Sgt. Williams consistently rejected these advances, but “Lt. Pearson continued to make these requests with increasing pressure.” Id. Plaintiff and Sgt. Williams were “extremely uncomfortable every time [Lt. Pearson] interacted with them.” Id.
On November 3, 2019, Sgt. Williams informed plaintiff that Officer Ajikobi had been charged with insubordination. Id. ¶ 52. And, on November 8, 2019, while plaintiff was “on a preapproved vacation,” Lt. Pearson sent a text message to plaintiff and to Sgt. McEntyre, informing them that “Officer Ajikobi had been transferred out of the unit to work for his close friend,” Maj. Lansey. Id. ¶ 53. Lt. Pearson stated that he was “‘going to pop out of [plaintiff's] birthday cake' to celebrate this news.” Id. But, on November 10, 2019, Lt. Pearson advised plaintiff that Officer Ajikobi's transfer had been “canceled as a result of the numerous complaints that had been filed against him by the Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 54.
During the week of November 18, 2019, Officer Ajikobi allegedly “bypassed the chain of command to schedule a meeting with Director Reynolds and Lt. Pearson directly.” Id. ¶ 55. Plaintiff asserts that Officer Ajikobi “was upset about his transfer being canceled and began to make false accusations about the Plaintiff in order to provide a retaliatory reason for the complaints filed against him.” Id.
Then, on November 22, 2019, plaintiff “received an email from Director Reynolds stating that he had received information that the Plaintiff was engaging in favoritism . . . and that from this point forward she would not be responsible for completing the unit's schedule.” Id. ¶ 56. Reynolds also “barred” Sgt. Leslie Williams from working overtime in the Unit. Id. According to plaintiff, “Director Reynolds claimed these changes were not punitive,” but instead were implemented with the intent “to create a ‘good working order' for the unit.” Id.