Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND VALERIE ELIZABETH WILLIAMS v. : : : : : : MEMORANDUM Now pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted.

Civil No. CCB-05-2855 ECF EXEMPT

ANCHORAGE MARINA

ANALYSIS In this employment discrimination claim, Valerie Elizabeth Williams ("Williams") alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender and race by her former employer, defendant Anchorage Marina ("Anchorage"). As Anchorage puts forth a challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, in that it is not a covered employer under the act, the underlying facts and substance of Williams's claim will not be recounted here. Based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Anchorage has moved to dismiss Williams's claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.1

Here, the fifteen-employee minimum at issue is a jurisdictional question that is not "intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute," and it is thus a "factual dispute" for the court to resolve under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). See Vick v. Foote Inc., 898 F.Supp. 330, 331-32 (E.D.Va. 1995). In reviewing a 12(b)(1) motion, "the district court is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Richmond, 1

1

Williams argues that Anchorage failed to count five of the marina workers as its employees, and that including them would result in Anchorage having the requisite "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year," thus giving the court jurisdiction. See 40 U.S.C.

Download Valerie E. Williams v. Anchorage Marina - Memorandum.pdf

Maryland Law