Scott v. Maryland State Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation
673 F. App'x 299
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Scott, a contract instructor for Anne Arundel Community College working at DLLR-run correctional facilities, alleged sex, race, color, and age discrimination and retaliation after filing administrative complaints; his contract was nonrenewed and later terminated.
- He filed an EEOC charge (dismissed) and then a pro se federal complaint naming DLLR and six DLLR employees; he proceeded in forma pauperis.
- The district court ordered service by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and provided Scott with USMS forms and instructions to identify DLLR’s resident agent, but Scott returned only one form and repeatedly directed service to a DLLR satellite office rather than the proper resident agent/secretary address.
- Some actual notice occurred (mailroom employees accepted delivery; counsel appeared), but the formal service requirements were not followed; additional summonses were later issued and executed after the 120-day period expired (service delay partly attributable to the Clerk/USMS).
- The district court dismissed the complaint for insufficient service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)/4(m) and held the individual defendants not liable under Title VII and the ADEA; Scott appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on DLLR was timely under Rule 4(m) | Scott contended delays were caused by court/USMS and thus tolled while in forma pauperis; service was therefore timely | Defendants argued service was untimely and defective | Court: Timeliness excused (good cause) because delays by Clerk/USMS outside Scott’s control (Robinson) |
| Whether service on DLLR was sufficient under Rule 4(j)/local rules | Scott argued actual notice and his pro se status counsel liberal construction | Defendants argued service was defective because he failed to serve the proper resident agent/secretary and used a satellite address | Court: Service was insufficient despite actual notice; plaintiff’s failure to use proper agent/address was a substantial defect and fatal |
| Whether district court abused discretion in refusing to extend time to cure service | Scott argued he sought extensions and was inexperienced; counsel later requested brief extension | Defendants argued Scott did not show good cause, was not diligent, and counsel failed to file proper Rule 6(b) motion | Court: No abuse — Scott did not demonstrate good cause or reasonable diligence; pro se status and clerical errors do not excuse the repeated failures |
| Whether individual DLLR employees are liable under Title VII and ADEA | Scott sued employees in their individual capacities for discrimination/retaliation | Defendants argued individuals are not liable under Title VII or ADEA; only employers may be sued | Court: Affirmed dismissal — individuals are not proper defendants under Title VII or the ADEA |
Key Cases Cited
- De’Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013) (pleading standards on motion to dismiss; accept factual allegations as true)
- Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605 (4th Cir. 2010) (Rule 4(m) service period tolled while court considers in forma pauperis complaint; delays by Marshals/Clerk can establish good cause)
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., Inc., 733 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1984) (actual notice does not excuse plain service requirements)
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988) (courts should avoid elevating mere technicalities over merits, but rules must still be observed)
- Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1994) (ADEA limits civil liability to the employer)
- Lissau v. Southern Food Servs., Inc., 159 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 1998) (individuals are not liable under Title VII)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (procedural rules are not excused because a party proceeds without counsel)