Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ALLEN EDWIN CARTER v. MARYLAND AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, et. al. : : : : : : MEMORANDUM Now pending before the court is the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' motion will be granted.

Civil No. CCB-04-3065

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Allen Edward Carter ("Carter"), a 53 year-old African-American, has been employed by defendant Maryland Aviation Administration ("MAA") and the Maryland Department of Transportation ("DOT") since 1982. He began his career with the state at a grade level 10. Through 28 years of employment he has never been promoted above a grade 11/12 despite, Carter alleges, always performing his work in a satisfactory manner. Carter filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on November 13, 2003. On June 29, 2004, Carter received his right to sue letter from the EEOC, and he filed this action on September 24, 2004.1 Totaling sixteen "counts," Carter alleges

Carter brought suit against the State of Maryland, the MAA, DOT, Daniel Consultants, Inc., and the following individuals, all employees of the MAA, in their individual capacities: Dianne Walker, Paul Wiedefeld, Joseph Nessel, Benjamin Chin, Ali Logmanni, and Mehrzad Rouhani. The court dismissed all claims against Daniel Consultants, Inc. in its May 6, 2005 opinion. See Carter v. Maryland Aviation Admin., 2005 WL 1075328, *1 (D.Md. 2005)(unreported). Additionally, to the extent Carter brought any of his Title VII claims against 1

1

multiple acts of discrimination on the part of his employer.2 Essentially, Carter contends that his race was the basis for, inter alia, his employer denying him training, timely and good faith evaluations, reclassifications, and promotions, and that he was retaliated against for complaining of the same.3 Carter further alleges that the MAA has a policy, custom or practice of this type of discrimination against other similarly situated African-American employees. Although his specific contentions are far more voluminous, the particular issues or instances Carter identifies include: his employer's failure to use the standard Position Appraisal Method ("PAM") in performing his evaluation, as is routinely done when considering reclassifications; the failure to consider, or "substitute," his years of experience in determining whether a reclassification was warranted; that he was sent to only two training conferences in

the individual defendants in their personal capacities, those claims were dismissed. Specifically, Carter alleges twelve federal claims and four pendent state law claims. These "counts," as styled by Carter, are: Count I - Title VII (Unlawful Race Discrimination); Count II - Title VII (Unlawful Sex Discrimination); Count III - Unlawful Retaliation (Title VII); Count IV - Title VII Hostile and Abusive Work Environment (based on race); Count V Unlawful Age Discrimination (ADEA); Count VI - Due Process Violation (42 U.S.C.

Download Allen Edwin Carter v. Maryland Aviation Admin, et al. - Memorandum.pdf

Maryland Law