BreeAnn Hammond-Thompson v. Temple View Capital

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland considers cross-motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment dispute between BreeAnn Hammond-Thompson and her former employer, Temple View Capital. The court grants Temple View Capital summary judgment on Hammond-Thompson’s employment claims, applying the Faragher-Ellerth defense, and grants Hammond-Thompson summary judgment on the employer’s Maryland Wiretap Act counterclaim. The opinion addresses alleged sexual harassment and assault, the employer’s anti-harassment policy, performance warnings, resignation, and recordings made by the plaintiff.

Holdings

1. Temple View Capital established the Faragher-Ellerth defense as a matter of law because it maintained and distributed an adequate anti-harassment policy and Hammond-Thompson unreasonably failed to use the available reporting procedures or otherwise report the alleged harassment. Summary judgment was therefore warranted on the Title VII and KAAD claims.
2. The Faragher-Ellerth defense applies to harassment claims under MFEPA and the Montgomery County Code. The 2019 MFEPA amendments established or modified substantive elements of a harassment claim but did not show legislative intent to eliminate the federal affirmative defense.
3. Hammond-Thompson failed to establish a prima facie retaliation claim because she presented no evidence that Temple View Capital management or the decisionmaker who issued the November 2021 warning knew of her alleged opposition to Weintraub's sexual harassment. Temporal proximity alone could not establish causation on this record.
4. The Maryland Wiretap Act does not impose civil liability for recordings made outside Maryland absent an express legislative statement of extraterritorial intent. Because the undisputed evidence showed that Hammond-Thompson made the recordings outside Maryland, she was entitled to summary judgment on Temple View Capital's counterclaim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Temple View Capital was entitled to summary judgment on Hammond-Thompson's hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims under Title VII, MFEPA, the KAAD, and the Montgomery County Code based on the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense.
2. Whether the Faragher-Ellerth defense applies to harassment claims under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act and the Montgomery County Code after the 2019 amendments to MFEPA.
3. Whether Hammond-Thompson established a prima facie retaliation claim where the alleged protected opposition to sexual harassment was not communicated to the decisionmakers who issued her performance warning.
4. Whether the Maryland Wiretap Act imposes civil liability for recordings made by a person outside Maryland, even when another participant was located in Maryland.

Disposition

other