Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted motions to dismiss claims arising from the denial of a minor student's bus transportation because she lacked an RFID bus card. The court dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under federal and Maryland law, and intrusion upon seclusion, finding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations supporting the elements of those claims. The case was dismissed and closed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint plausibly stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law.
- Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims under Title VI, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Maryland Human Rights Act.
- Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Maryland intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) before dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Whether Howard County Public Schools was a suable legal entity under Maryland law.
Holdings
- Under Maryland law, Howard County Public Schools is not a separate legal entity subject to suit; the Board of Education of Howard County is the proper defendant. The court nevertheless declined to dismiss the claims against the Board solely on that misnomer because doing so would be inefficient and the parties had briefed the substantive issues.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it did not factually support the required intent or recklessness and the alleged denial of bus transportation without an RFID card was not extreme and outrageous conduct.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible discrimination claim because it did not allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that Defendants denied transportation on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or another protected characteristic.
- The complaint failed to state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion because it did not allege any intrusion into a private place or private affairs.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to discovery under Rule 56(d) because the court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), not on summary judgment, and the pleaded facts were insufficient as a matter of law even when accepted as true.
Key quotations
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” (Section II.A)
“The defendant’s conduct must be so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” (Section III.A)
“the gist of the offense is the intrusion into a private place or the invasion of a private seclusion that the plaintiff has thrown about his person or affairs.” (Section III.C)
Factual background
A.P., a fifth-grade student at Northfield Elementary School in Howard County, was denied transportation home on October 31, 2025, because she did not have an RFID bus card. Plaintiff later requested an exception permitting A.P. to ride the bus without the card, but the request was denied. Plaintiff alleged that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, caused severe emotional distress, was discriminatory, and involved data collection or surveillance associated with the RFID system, although she alleged that A.P. did not actually use the RFID card.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination, and invasion of privacy arising from the denial of her minor daughter's ability to ride a school bus without an RFID bus card. Howard County Public Schools removed the case to federal court on January 14, 2026, invoking federal-question jurisdiction, with Zum Services' consent. The court considered the parties' briefing without a hearing, denied Plaintiff's request for discovery under Rule 56(d), and granted both motions to dismiss.