Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND EDWARD J. SIMMONS, JR. v. POOLE & KENT CORP. : : : CIVIL NO. CCB-10-1370 : : ...o0o... MEMORANDUM Now pending is a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Poole & Kent Corp. in this discrimination case filed by pro se plaintiff Edward J. Simmons, Jr. Mr. Simmons was laid off in September 2009 and believes it was retaliation for a complaint he made in July 2009 to the human resources department at Poole & Kent. I have carefully examined Mr. Simmons's letter opposition dated August 18, 2010. The dispute between job superintendent Bruce Radcliff and Mr. Simmons appears to have originated in July 2009 over a parking spot on a county road. According to Mr. Simmons, Mr. Radcliff then began calling Mr. Simmons's wife on her cell phone and harassing her, including telling her that Mr. Simmons should not contact the human resources department. Poole & Kent promised Mr. Simmons there would be no retaliation for his complaint to human resources, but he was laid off seven weeks later. To state a federal claim for employment discrimination, in particular retaliatory discharge, Mr. Simmons must show that he engaged in protected conduct, which then caused his layoff. The conduct he has alleged consists of complaints he made to Poole & Kent about phone calls to his wife, who is not an employee of Poole & Kent. Even if the harassment were considered to be aimed at him indirectly, it resulted from a dispute about parking, not from any protected status such as race, sex, or religion. While unfortunate, this will not support a federal

1

discrimination claim. See, e.g., Bonds v. Leavitt, 647 F. Supp. 2d 541, 567-68 (D. Md. 2009). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted by separate Order.

September 14, 2010 Date

/s/ Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND EDWARD J. SIMMONS, JR. v. POOLE & KENT CORP. : : : CIVIL NO. CCB-10-1370 : : ...o0o... ORDER For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (docket entry no. 6) is Granted; 2. this case is Dismissed; and 3. the Clerk shall SEND a copy of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum to plaintiff and counsel of record.

September 14, 2010 Date

/s/ Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

3



Download Edward J. Simmons, Jr. v. Poole & Kent Corp..pdf

Maryland Law