Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

AKHMEDOV v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, JFM-15-226. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Maryland Number: infdco20161027a32 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . Plaintiff has brought this pro se action for employment discrimination stemming from the rejection of his application to be a Correctional Officer I. Discovery has been completed, and defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded to the motion. The motion will be granted. The case turns on whether or not plaintiff was told by a representative of the defendant during the course of the employment application proc
More

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has brought this pro se action for employment discrimination stemming from the rejection of his application to be a Correctional Officer I. Discovery has been completed, and defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded to the motion. The motion will be granted.

The case turns on whether or not plaintiff was told by a representative of the defendant during the course of the employment application process that he did not have to disclose that he had been employed at Sam's Club in Frederick, Maryland. In fact, he had been employed by Sam's Club and had been fired for repeatedly coming in late. It is defendant's position that plaintiff first disclosed that he had worked at Sam's Club and had been fired after he had been asked whether he had been fired from any place of employment.

Plaintiff is a member of a protected class. However, he cannot establish that he was not hired because he was a member of a protected class. The Background and Information Form that plaintiff was required to fill out stated that he needed to include every job he held from the age of 18 to the present. Because he did not list his employment at Sam's Club before being asked whether he had been fired from any position during his interview he was automatically disqualified for the position for which he applied. In that connection defendant has submitted the applications of various persons, not in plaintiff's protected class, who were deemed disqualified because they did not list all of their places of employment on their Background Information Forms.

Plaintiff may reapply for the position for which he was rejected in July 2017. If he remains interested in the position, he should reapply.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer