Filed: Jan. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . This is an action for employment discrimination. Plaintiff has asserted claims for age discrimination arising out of her non-selection as Circulation Supervisor at defendant's Waldorf branch, claims for race discrimination and retaliation arising from her advocacy for African-American employees of defendant, negligent retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Discovery has been completed, and defendant has filed a motion fo
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . This is an action for employment discrimination. Plaintiff has asserted claims for age discrimination arising out of her non-selection as Circulation Supervisor at defendant's Waldorf branch, claims for race discrimination and retaliation arising from her advocacy for African-American employees of defendant, negligent retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Discovery has been completed, and defendant has filed a motion for..
More
MEMORANDUM
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
This is an action for employment discrimination. Plaintiff has asserted claims for age discrimination arising out of her non-selection as Circulation Supervisor at defendant's Waldorf branch, claims for race discrimination and retaliation arising from her advocacy for African-American employees of defendant, negligent retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Discovery has been completed, and defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion will be granted.
The record makes clear that plaintiff strongly advocated the rights of African-American employees of defendant.1 Moreover, she is married to an African-American and her children are biracial. She keeps pictures of her family on her desk, and her children have attended events sponsored by defendant. She also brought her bi-racial marriage to the attention of a mediator who was retained by the County to resolve a grievance filed against plaintiff from another Library employee.
There is, however, no evidence, other than plaintiff's self-evaluation, that she was not selected for the positions for which she alleges that she was the victim of age discrimination. Likewise, she has not demonstrated in any way that there was a causal connection between her non-selection for any position or other disciplinary actions that were taken against her arising from her advocacy for African-American employees.2
My review of the evidence is rather summary in nature. However, I have reviewed the record in detail, and it is clear that plaintiff has not met the burden of proving any claim of discrimination or any other claim. Remarkably absent from the record is any indication that plaintiff (or any other member of a protected class) was discriminated against because of advocacy for the rights of minorities or because plaintiff (or anyone else) was a member of a protected class. Under the discrimination laws employers are entrusted to make lawful employment decisions. Of course, their decisions are subject to review, first by a court if a summary judgment motion is filed and then, if the motion is denied, by a jury. Here, the record makes clear that defendant did not act inappropriately, and plaintiff is not entitled to have her employer's decisions made subject to second-guessing by a jury.
A separate order granting defendant's motion is being entered herewith.
