154 F. Supp. 3d 206
D. Maryland
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Royster (born 1970) worked at Harford County Sheriff’s Office since 1995, becoming Crime Analyst Manager in 2006; she alleges a change in treatment beginning in 2013 with negative evaluations, derogatory comments, and being reassigned and demoted in responsibility while a younger employee (mid-20s) was promoted.
  • She filed an EEOC charge (Dec. 4, 2014) and received a right-to-sue letter (May 29, 2015), then sued under the ADEA (age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation) against the State of Maryland and Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler (official capacity).
  • Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Royster sought leave to add a Maryland state-law age discrimination claim under the MFEPA and had sent a letter to the State Treasurer (Aug. 27, 2015).
  • The State argued sovereign immunity bars MFEPA claims in federal court and that the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) notice requirement (and its prior strict one-year rule) bars suits against the State when notice was not timely or properly given.
  • The court concluded the State is immune from ADEA suit; Sheriff Gahler (a Maryland constitutional/state officer) is immune from monetary damages but may be sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young; Royster stated plausible ADEA disparate-treatment and retaliation claims for prospective injunctive relief but failed to plead an age-based hostile-work-environment claim adequately.
  • The court denied leave to amend to add the MFEPA claim because Royster failed to satisfy the MTCA notice requirement (and could not show substantial compliance for pre‑Aug. 27, 2014 injuries) and declined to stay the case pending Treasurer action.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether State of Maryland can be sued under the ADEA / MFEPA in federal court Royster sought to add MFEPA claim; argued State waiver applies and she substantially complied with MTCA notice by sending letters and EEOC filing State argued Title 20 waiver (S.G. §20-903) does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity for federal court; MTCA notice (S.G. §12-106) not satisfied State dismissed: ADEA claims against State barred by sovereign immunity; leave to amend MFEPA denied for failure to satisfy MTCA notice/time and not substantially compliant
Whether MTCA notice requirement applies to state-law employment discrimination claims Royster argued MTCA does not apply to MFEPA claims and cited cases holding MTCA inapplicable State relied on Hansen and related authority to apply MTCA notice rule to employment discrimination claims Court held MTCA notice applies (Hansen persuasive); Royster failed to provide timely or adequate notice for pre-August 27, 2014 injuries; timely Treasurer notice for Oct. 2014 claim was not ripe because Treasurer had six months to act
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars claims against Sheriff Gahler (official capacity) Royster conceded monetary relief barred but sought prospective injunctive relief (promotion, personnel-file corrections) and invoked Ex parte Young exception Defendants argued Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suits and Ex parte Young not applicable to official-capacity claims against state officers Court held Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against Gahler, but Ex parte Young permits prospective injunctive relief against a state officer in his official capacity; allowed ADEA claims against Gahler only to the extent they seek prospective injunctive relief (Counts I and III)
Whether Royster stated plausible ADEA claims (discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation) Royster alleged adverse actions (reassignment, diminished duties, younger promoted), protected activity (complaints, EEOC charge), and causal connection Defendants argued allegations insufficient to plead adverse action, causation, or age-based harassment; hostile-environment allegations lacked age nexus Court: plausible disparate-treatment (Count I) and retaliation (Count III) claims survive as to prospective injunctive relief against Gahler; hostile work environment (Count II) dismissed for failure to allege harassment "based on" age but Royster given leave to amend that claim limited to prospective injunctive relief

Key Cases Cited

  • Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (creates exception to Eleventh Amendment allowing prospective injunctive relief against state officers to stop ongoing federal-law violations)
  • Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) (state waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
  • Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157 (2007) (Treasurer’s designee requirement for MTCA notice is strict; certain recipients like county officials do not qualify)
  • Hansen v. City of Laurel, 420 Md. 670 (2011) (applies local-government notice requirement to employment-discrimination claims and requires pleading satisfaction of notice provisions)
  • Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368 (4th Cir. 2013) (Ex parte Young permits reinstatement and other prospective equitable relief against sheriffs in official capacity)
  • Simpson v. Moore, 323 Md. 215 (1991) (MTCA notice is a condition precedent to suit; strict compliance required pre-amendment)
  • Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA disparate-treatment plaintiffs must prove age was the but-for cause of the adverse action)
  • McCray v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., Md. Transit Admin., 741 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2014) (discusses Eleventh Amendment and state immunity in ADEA context)
Read the full case