Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GUSTAVUS A. ALUKO : : v. : : MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND et al. : Civil Action No. DKC 98-2242

MEMORANDUM OPINION This case arises out of Plaintiff's discharge from

employment as a Montgomery County housing code inspector amid allegations that he took bribes as an inspector for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff has asserted claims for deprivation of

his procedural and substantive due process rights, violation of his equal protection rights, and related state law claims. Pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Montgomery County and the individual county defendants named in the lawsuit. The issues have been fully briefed, and no Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons

hearing is deemed necessary.

that follow, the motion shall be GRANTED. I. Background Dr. Gustavus Aluko, an African-American male, was employed by the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs ("DHCA") as a housing code enforcement inspector from May 19, 1997 to July 2, 1997. Prior to accepting his position

with Montgomery County, Aluko was employed for over ten years

with the District of Columbia's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Code Enforcement Section. On Friday, June

13, 1997, a few weeks after beginning his employment with DHCA, Aluko received a telephone call from his supervisor, Defendant Linda Bird, who directed him to attend a meeting later that day with the director of the DHCA, Defendant Elizabeth Davison. Present at the meeting were Aluko, Bird, Davison, Joseph

Giloley, chief of Division Housing and Code Enforcement for DHCA, and James Torgesen, from the Montgomery County Personnel Department. The purpose of the meeting was to confront Aluko with allegations that he had taken bribes when he was a zoning inspector with the District of Columbia. At the meeting, it was

explained that Defendant William Duggan, who is not a county employee, told Bird that Aluko was "dirty" and that he

personally bribed Aluko when Aluko was an inspector with the District. Aluko was then handed a memorandum captioned "Notice

of Intent to Terminate," which read as follows: You are hereby notified that the following reasons may serve as a basis for your termination from County employment. You may respond to these reasons to me in person or in writing by June 25, 1997, before final action is taken on this matter: 1. It has recently come to my attention that you had accepted money from one William Duggan while working in an official capacity for the District of Columbia Government in exchange for 2

favorable treatment on a project for which you had oversight. 2. One [sic] June 4, 1997, Mr. Duggan, upon transacting business with this Department, noticed your name on the Division sign-out board. Mr. Duggan asked if you were the same person who had worked for the District of Columbia Government. This was affirmed by Program Manager Linda Bird. He stated that you were one to be watched, that he (Aluko) will take money, because I have paid him. 3. Ms. Bird had a subsequent conversation with the same individual and reaffirmed that in exchange for a dollar amount, code violations on a building project for which you were responsible as a zoning inspector were overlooked. Mr. Duggan stated that he paid you the money because he needed to get his business opened quickly and could not afford the delays and costs of a citation. Citations pending on the project were never issued. 4. You are a probationary employee. The probationary period constitutes a continuation of the examination period. Had this information been brought to my attention during the review of your application and subsequent selection process, you would not have been hired.1

Duggan denies stating that Aluko took a bribe from him. At his deposition, Duggan testified that when he was talking with Bird at the DHCA on June 4, 1997, he noticed Aluko's name on the sign-out board and asked if Aluko previously worked for the District. Bird answered affirmatively, and Duggan made a remark about how much more efficient things worked in Montgomery County as compared to the District. He then commented that "everything down there [in the District] works so terribly or not at all, and all of them are dirty." Duggan testified that this was the full extent of any comment he made about inspectors from the District. The significance, if any, of the discrepancy between Bird's and Duggan's version of what was said at the DHCA on June 4, 1997, will be addressed below. 3

1

Aluko denied the allegations. Aluko

Nevertheless, Davison placed

on paid administrative leave.

With the assistance of counsel, Aluko prepared a written response to the "Notice of Intent to Terminate." In the

response, Aluko denied the allegations against him and stated that he had never met or heard of Duggan. Aluko also explained

that, through a Freedom of Information Act request, he learned that during his tenure with the District no zoning applications or complaints were filed with respect to the business property owned by Duggan. He also stated that the documents showed no

zoning inspection approval was required for Duggan to operate his business on the property.2 This, Aluko claims, was evidence

that there was never any occasion for Duggan to offer Aluko a bribe. Aluko delivered his response to Davison on June 25, 1997. Davison reviewed the response and decided to terminate Aluko. On July 2, 1997, Davison drafted a memorandum to Aluko captioned "Notice of Termination." The memorandum advised Aluko that he

was being terminated and essentially restated the allegations contained in the "Notice of Intent to Terminate" as reason for the termination.

Aluko attached a copy of the response to the FOIA request to his response to Davison. 4

2

This lawsuit followed. Davison, Bird, Giloley,

The suit names Montgomery County, (collectively the "County

Torgesen

Defendants"), Duggan and 2461 Corporation, which is allegedly owned by Duggan, as Defendants. Aluko's first amended complaint

asserts the following causes of action: Count I (42 U.S.C.

Download Aluko v Montgomery County.pdf

Maryland Law