Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gemma Chan v. Montgomery County Maryland

April 24, 2013

GEMMA CHAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alexander Williams, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court has reviewed the record and deems a hearing unnecessary. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gemma Chan is an Asian female whom Defendant Montgomery County ("the County") hired in 2006, apparently as an IT specialist. Allegedly, two County employees sexually harassed Plaintiff between 2006--2009. As a result, on February 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed an EEO complaint with the County Government. At an unspecified time after she filed her EEO complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the County engaged in a series of retaliatory acts. They include:

i. Demoting Plaintiff by taking away a substantial duty of leading IT assessments;

ii. Documenting Plaintiff's work activity;

iii. Taking Plaintiff off of her IT projects;

iv. Refusing to assign Plaintiff work, with the result that Plaintiff had to request assignments and work independently;

v. Denying Plaintiff opportunities for training and promotion;

vi. Barring Plaintiff from working on business process requirement analysis;

vii. Refusing to communicate with Plaintiff, withholding vital work information, and failing to inform Plaintiff of deadlines.

See Doc. No. 13-3 at 3--4. Plaintiff further alleges that the County did not engage in such acts with respect to other employees.

In September 2010, Plaintiff allegedly learned that her salary was "disparately" lower than the salaries of her co-workers. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that her salary "is lower than all Defendant IT employees two grades below her." Id. at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that two white males at Plaintiff's 28-level pay classification earn approximately $11,000 and $13,000 more than Plaintiff even though they have less education and experience than Plaintiff. Plaintiff continues that these two employees perform the same work as Plaintiff. Around the time Plaintiff learned that her pay was lower than that of her co-workers, Plaintiff requested a pay raise. On April 14, 2011, the County denied Plaintiff's request for a pay raise.

Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on June 10, 2011. Subsequently, on June 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, which she subsequently amended twice. See Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 13-3. Plaintiff asserts state and federal claims for retaliation, race discrimination, and gender discrimination. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.