308 F. Supp. 3d 861
D. Maryland2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Valedia Gross sued Morgan State University and supervisor Joyce Brown alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under federal statutes (ADEA, ADA, Title VII, GINA, EPA) and a Maryland negligent hiring/retention/supervision state-law claim.
- Defendants (represented by Maryland Attorney General counsel) answered, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies; procedural disputes followed (late filings, motions to strike affirmative defenses).
- The court struck defendants' affirmative defenses for failure to respond to a specific order, but later concluded sovereign immunity was not waived by counsel's noncompliance.
- Defendants moved to dismiss / for judgment on the pleadings / summary judgment; Gross moved for summary judgment; the court evaluated jurisdictional and merits issues.
- Court concluded ADEA (exhausted) and ADA (unexhausted) claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; Title VII and GINA claims were unexhausted and thus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; EPA claim failed to state a claim; state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice for the state courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADEA and ADA claims against Morgan State/Joyce Brown are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity | Gross argued defendants waived immunity by failing to timely respond and losing affirmative defenses | Morgan State (and Brown in official capacity) is an arm of the State and immune; federal statutes (ADEA, ADA) did not validly abrogate sovereign immunity; Attorney General cannot waive immunity | Court: ADEA and ADA claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; dismissed |
| Whether Title VII and GINA claims are before the court (exhaustion) | Gross asserted discrimination on multiple bases (race, gender, national origin, disability, genetic info) | Administrative charge only alleged age discrimination (ADEA); Title VII/GINA claims were not exhausted or reasonably related to the ADEA charge | Court: Title VII and GINA claims not exhausted; dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether EPA claim states a claim for relief | Gross invoked the EPA in the complaint | Defendants argued complaint lacks factual allegations to support EPA elements | Court: EPA claim pleaded only as bare legal conclusion; dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligent hiring/retention/supervision claims | Gross sought relief on state tort claims in same suit | Defendants relied on dismissal of federal claims; court has discretion under §1367 | Court: Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim with factual content)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must raise claim above speculative level)
- Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (ADEA does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (ADA does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Exp. Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suit is against the governmental entity)
- Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1994) (ADEA liability is limited to the employer)
- Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011) (overview of sovereign immunity principle)
- Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436 (1883) (state may waive immunity but waiver must be voluntary)