Stacey Jackson v. Valerie E. Brown, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland addressed motions to strike and motions to dismiss an amended complaint alleging retaliation under Title VII, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The court declined to strike the improperly filed amended complaint, dismissed the retaliation claims against the individual defendants and the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim, and allowed the retaliation claims against the Exelon Companies based on alleged nonpayment under a settlement agreement to proceed. The court denied as moot the defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaint.

Holdings

1. Although Plaintiff filed the amended complaint outside the Rule 15(a)(1)(B) period and without consent or leave, the court declined to strike it because doing so would cause needless delay and the parties had already briefed its merits.
2. The court declined to treat conduct within the scope of litigation as adverse action for purposes of the retaliation claims, even where the plaintiff alleged that the conduct was improper, because litigation misconduct is ordinarily addressed through court rules rather than Title VII or related antiretaliation statutes.
3. Jackson plausibly alleged Title VII, § 1981, and Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act retaliation claims against the Exelon Companies based on the alleged delay and refusal to pay for deposition-related assistance.
4. Jackson failed to state retaliation claims against Mr. Glover and the Outside Counsel Defendants because she did not allege that they participated in the compensation-related conduct, and the remaining allegations involved nonactionable litigation-related conduct or lacked causation.
5. Jackson failed to state a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim because the amended complaint did not plead specific, nonconclusory facts showing a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint should be stricken because it was filed outside the period for amendment as of right and without consent or leave.
2. Whether litigation-related conduct by the defendants constituted adverse action supporting Title VII, § 1981, or Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act retaliation claims.
3. Whether the alleged delay and withholding of contractually required compensation for deposition-related assistance plausibly constituted adverse action and causally related retaliation.
4. Whether Jackson plausibly alleged retaliation claims against the individual and outside-counsel defendants.
5. Whether Jackson plausibly alleged a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

Disposition

other