Okusami v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
1:18-cv-01701
| D. Maryland | Feb 28, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Taiwo Okusami, M.D., an African‑American staff psychiatrist at the Thomas B. Finan Center (part of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene), was a contractual at‑will employee from April 2011 to November 1, 2016, under a July 1, 2016 Personal Services Contract.
- Okusami alleges that supervisors (both Caucasian) pressured him to limit or alter forensic evaluations/testimony, denied compensation for court testimony that comparable Caucasian colleagues received, publicly scolded him, and ultimately terminated his contract effective November 1, 2016.
- He filed an EEOC charge (Dec. 30, 2016), received a right‑to‑sue letter (May 1, 2018), and sued in federal court asserting: Count I — race discrimination (Title VII); Count II — hostile work environment/harassment (Title VII); Count III — retaliation (Title VII); Count IV — wrongful discharge (Maryland law).
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and argued (inter alia) that Count IV is barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and that Title VII Counts II and III fail to state claims; it also relied on the contract’s forum‑selection clause.
- The court granted dismissal of Counts II (hostile work environment), III (retaliation), and IV (state wrongful discharge) but denied the motion as to Count I (disparate treatment race discrimination).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count IV (state wrongful discharge) may proceed in federal court despite Eleventh Amendment immunity | Okusami asserted a state wrongful termination claim (race‑based) and cited Maryland statutes concerning waiver of immunity | DHMH argued Eleventh Amendment bars the federal suit against the State/agency; Maryland did not waive immunity for federal actions | Held: Dismissed. Eleventh Amendment bars Count IV; no applicable abrogation or waiver for suit in federal court |
| Whether Count I (Title VII disparate treatment race discrimination) was plausibly pleaded | Okusami alleged he was treated less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian colleagues (e.g., denied pay for testimony, differential discipline, termination) | DHMH argued comparators were not similarly situated (different positions, contractual status) and that plaintiff’s contract made him distinct | Held: Denied dismissal. Court found allegations sufficient at pleading stage to show comparators and plausible disparate treatment claim |
| Whether Count II (hostile work environment) was plausibly pleaded under Title VII | Okusami alleged repeated public berating, intimidation by supervisor, undermining of clinical authority, and differential treatment versus Caucasian peers | DHMH argued conduct was not severe or pervasive nor shown to be race‑based | Held: Granted dismissal. Allegations insufficient to show objectively severe or pervasive racially‑based hostile environment |
| Whether Count III (retaliation) states a claim under Title VII | Okusami relied on his August 12, 2015 letter and October 4, 2016 meeting opposing the Center’s practices as protected opposition, and alleged termination followed | DHMH argued those actions were not protected under Title VII (opposition outside Title VII’s scope) and facts do not show causal, but‑for retaliation | Held: Granted dismissal. Court concluded the alleged opposition concerned treatment decisions outside the scope of Title VII and thus not protected activity; retaliation claim not pleaded sufficiently |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.) (sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of jurisdiction)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (federal courts may not adjudicate state law claims against states absent consent)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (exception permitting prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing federal violations)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment proof)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (Title VII plaintiffs need not plead a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply Twombly/Iqbal standard to all civil actions)
- Boyer‑Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir.) (standards for hostile work environment and significance of harasser's status)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse action standard: actions that would deter reasonable worker)