Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JEAN FORD * * v. * CIVIL NO. JFM-01-3328 * SKIPPING STONE, INC. * ***** MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Jean Ford has instituted this action against Skipping Stone, Inc. ("Skipping Stone") alleging disparate pay, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and disparate pay in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Now pending before me is plaintiff's motion to transfer. The motion has been fully briefed and oral argument was held on November 1, 2002. For the reasons that follow, I will grant the motion. I. Skipping Stone, a Delaware corporation, provides consulting and technology services for the energy industry.1 Skipping Stone's corporate functions are divided between offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania2 and Houston, Texas. In February 2000, Skipping Stone hired Ford as a Senior Consultant. Ford's job title was subsequently changed to Senior Project Manager. According to Ford, Peter Weigand, Skipping Stone's Chief Executive Officer, was responsible for the hiring. (Pl.'s Ex. 2, Ford Dep. at 74-76.) When Ford was hired, Weigand worked out of

Some of the factual background of this opinion has been drawn from the pleadings relating to a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer by Skipping Stone, which as discussed below, I previously denied without prejudice.
2

1

Specifically, the office is located in Rosemont, Pennsylvania, which is a Philadelphia -1-

suburb.

Skipping Stone's Philadelphia office. Weigand continues to work at the Philadelphia office. Ford's duties included working on-site at various clients' offices and facilities. During her employment, Ford worked on-site at three different client offices located in Boston, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Louisiana and McLean, Virginia. When she was not working at a client's office, Ford frequently worked at her home in Annapolis, Maryland.3 During the last four months of her employment, Ford traveled to Philadelphia five times to work on a variety of projects with Weigand and others. Throughout her employment, Ford reported to and discussed her work with Weigand. At times, Ford met with Weigand at his office, home, and restaurants in the Philadelphia area to discuss her contentions that Skipping Stone did not hire females as principal employees and that female employees were paid less than male employees. On March 7, 2001, Ford was terminated from Skipping Stone. The decision to terminate her was made, at least in part, by Weigand. (See Pl.'s Ex. 12.) To inform Ford of her termination, Skipping Stone's Chief Financial Officer, Curt Baker (who also works at the Philadelphia office) flew to Annapolis and informed her of the decision at a restaurant. Following her termination, Ford received unemployment insurance through an account activated by Skipping Stone in Maryland. Ford's claims generally fall into four categories. First, Ford alleges that she was sexually harassed by a Skipping Stone employee. This incident allegedly took place in Houston. Second, Ford alleges that Skipping Stone discriminated against her on the basis of gender when it failed to promote her to a vacant Director of Fulfillment position. Third, Ford alleges that she received inequitable pay compared to males within the company. Finally, Ford alleges that she was
3

Overall, Ford worked at home approximately 25% of the time. -2-

terminated in retaliation for complaining about unequal pay and the failure to promote. This case was originally filed in November 2001. On January 23, 2002, Skipping Stone filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Southern District of Texas. Essentially, Skipping Stone argued that this court lacked personal jurisdiction and alternatively that this court was the improper venue for adjudication of the case. At an April 8, 2002 hearing, I denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to being renewed in all respects after the completion of discovery. Rather, than renew its motion, Skipping Stone has filed an amended answer in which it withdraws its defenses regarding personal jurisdiction, service of process, and venue. Skipping Stone now argues, in opposition to plaintiff's motion, that the case should proceed in this Court. II. Ford has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Download Barbara Jean Ford v. State of Maryland.pdf

Maryland Law