Booth v. County Executive, 186 F. Supp. 3d 479

Background

Booth, an African American social worker at Montgomery County DHHS since 2006, alleges long‑running mistreatment by supervisor Dale Schacherer beginning in 2008, including refusal to provide evaluations, isolating behavior, humiliation in meetings, delays/signing errors on required forms, and a proposed unpaid suspension in 2008 that was overturned via a union grievance.
Booth filed an EEOC charge on April 20, 2015 and received a right‑to‑sue letter on April 30, 2015; he also gave the County notice under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act before suing.
Complaint asserts Title VII claims for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation, plus a state law intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Court treated allegations in the light most favorable to Booth but applied Iqbal/Twombly standards for plausibility and required statutory limitations and entity/official‑capacity rules.
Court dismissed DHHS (not a separate legal entity) and County Executive Leggett (official‑capacity claim duplicative of County) from Title VII claims; barred discrete acts outside the 300‑day limitations window but allowed consideration of pre‑period events as context for hostile environment claims.
Court dismissed disparate treatment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and IIED claims for failure to plead required elements plausibly; some claims dismissed with prejudice (DHHS, Leggett, 2008 suspension disparate‑treatment claim), remainder without prejudice with 21 days to seek leave to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper defendants	Sued County, DHHS, and Leggett (official capacity) for Title VII and IIED	DHHS is not a separate legal entity; Leggett in official capacity duplicates County	DHHS and Leggett dismissed (DHHS not suable; Leggett duplicative)
Limitations period	Seeks relief for conduct from 2008–2014; filed EEOC charge in April 2015	Discrete acts before June 24, 2014 are time‑barred (300‑day rule)	Discrete acts before June 24, 2014 barred; hostile environment may consider earlier acts as context if a contributing act occurred within 300 days
Disparate treatment (race/gender)	Schacherer treated Booth worse than coworkers, caused delays and humiliation	No plausible adverse action alleged within limitations period; no adequately pleaded similarly situated comparators or racial motive	Disparate treatment claim dismissed for failure to plead adverse action and comparator/racial motive plausibly
Hostile work environment / Retaliation	Long campaign of harassment after 2008 grievance created hostile environment and retaliated for protected activity	Allegations lack racial animus, lack severe/pervasive conduct and lack materially adverse retaliation	Hostile environment dismissed for failure to allege race‑based severe or pervasive conduct; retaliation dismissed for lack of protected activity (no allegation of opposing unlawful race/gender discrimination) and lack of materially adverse action
IIED (Maryland law)	Supervisor’s prolonged harassment caused severe emotional distress	Conduct amounts to workplace harassment but not extreme/outrageous as required under Maryland law	IIED claim dismissed for failure to allege conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility required)
Revene v. Charles Cty. Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870 (subdivision of county not separate suable entity)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (limitations rule: discrete acts vs. continuing hostile environment)
Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187 (Title VII prima facie framework and comparator analysis)
Boyer‑Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (hostile work environment standard; need severe or pervasive race‑based conduct)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation: materially adverse action standard)