McCray v. Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Transit Administration, 741 F.3d 480

Background

Marie McCray worked at Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)/MDOT from 1971 until her position was abolished in 2008 during statewide budget cuts.
In 2007 McCray, a diabetic, fainted at work; supervisors thereafter questioned her fitness despite medical clearance and an independent exam finding no work impairment.
Beginning in 2007–2008 her primary duties were reassigned and she was denied additional responsibilities, leaving her vulnerable when the position was later eliminated.
McCray filed EEOC charges alleging race, sex, age (ADEA), and disability (ADA Title I) discrimination and then sued in federal court.
Before significant discovery, MDOT/MTA moved to dismiss based on legislative immunity; the district court converted the motion to summary judgment, denied McCray's Rule 56(d) request for discovery, and dismissed all claims.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of ADEA and ADA Title I claims on sovereign immunity grounds, but vacated the dismissal of the Title VII claim and remanded because McCray alleged pre-legislative discriminatory conduct and was denied discovery under Rule 56(d).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment dismissal before discovery was proper under Rule 56(d)	McCray argued she lacked access to essential evidence (how positions were selected; supervisors' motives) and sought discovery to oppose summary judgment	MDOT/MTA argued legislative immunity bars the suit and that the requested discovery is immaterial to that immunity defense	Court: Denied dismissal as premature under Rule 56(d) for Title VII claim; discovery should have been allowed because alleged misconduct occurred before legislative action
Whether legislative immunity bars McCray's claims arising from budget-driven termination	McCray contended some discriminatory acts occurred prior to any legislative act and thus are not shielded	MDOT/MTA argued the position elimination was a legislative act (budget decision) shielding them from suit	Court: Legislative immunity protects legislative acts and their advisers, but does not shield alleged discriminatory actions taken before legislative activity; remanded to allow discovery on pre-legislative conduct
Whether sovereign (Eleventh Amendment) immunity bars ADEA and ADA Title I claims against state agencies	McCray asserted claims under ADEA and ADA Title I against MDOT/MTA	MDOT/MTA argued sovereign immunity bars suits for money/injunctive relief under those statutes	Court: Affirmed dismissal of ADEA and ADA Title I claims because sovereign immunity hasn’t been abrogated for those statutes
Whether appellate consideration of sovereign immunity raised for first time is procedurally barred	McCray argued MDOT/MTA waived Eleventh Amendment defense by not raising it below	MDOT/MTA raised sovereign immunity on appeal	Court: Allowed the defense to be raised on appeal due to its jurisdictional nature and the preliminary stage of the case

Key Cases Cited

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity jurisdictional and may be raised on appeal)
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for ADA Title I suits)
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (ADEA claims not abrogated; sovereign immunity bars suits against states)
E.E.O.C. v. Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 631 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing pre- and legislative conduct; allows investigation of pre-legislative discrimination)
Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (legislative immunity protects legislators and acts that are legislative in function)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and principle that summary judgment should follow adequate discovery)
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002) (Rule 56(d) motions broadly favored; review for abuse of discretion)
Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep't v. Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (function-based legislative immunity analysis)