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.

Hopson v. City of Baltimore

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division

September 16, 2014

LOUIS H. HOPSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF BALTIMORE, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM D. QUARLES, Jr., District Judge.

On June 18, 2009, Charles H. Carter, and others, entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD") and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore ("City"). Carter, acting pro se, filed a motion for summary judgment against the BPD and the City (collectively, the "Defendants") for violating the Settlement Agreement.[1] Pending is Carter's objection to Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). For the following reasons, the Court will adopt Judge Gesner's R&R.

I. Background

On December 6, 2004, Carter, and others, sued the BPD and the City for engaging in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American police officers. See ECF No. 1 ΒΆΒΆ 1-2. On June 18, 2009, Carter, and 14 other plaintiffs, entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Defendants. See ECF No. 306 at 3. On July 13, 2009, this Court approved the Settlement Agreement. See ECF No. 307. The Settlement Agreement provides:

1. Confidentiality: Plaintiffs' personnel files and the disciplinary proceedings reflected therein are confidential and limited from disclosure by various laws. The BPD reiterates its standard practice, [2] and agrees it will be followed with regard to Individual Plaintiffs, and that, except to the extent required by law, the BPD will respond to requests for employment history and information by disclosing dates of service only, and will not disclose any Individual Plaintiff's disciplinary history or whether the end of service was as a result of termination or resignation or otherwise.

ECF No. 306 at 8.[3]

On January 19, 2012, the Maryland Transit Administration ("MTA") sent Carter a letter informing him that MTA had denied his employment application "based upon [his] failure to meet MTA standards during the background investigation." ECF No. 311-6 at 1. In a February 22, 2012 letter, MTA stated:

According to our records, we received your blank Personal History Statement (PHS) and request to withdraw on July 2, 2011. Although you sent in your request, the department conducts a preliminary background check based on information supplied in your Pre-Investigation Questionnaire.... Although you withdrew from the process, the information you provided or failed to provide in the Pre-Investigation Questionnaire and our background checks disqualified you from further consideration.

Id.

On June 11, 2013, Carter signed an Authorization for Release of Information to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS") ("Public Safety Release"). See ECF No. 325-3 at 23.[4] The Public Safety Release provides:

I[, ] Charles Henry Carter[, ] [...] hereby authorize a review and full disclosure of all records, or any part thereof, concerning myself to any duly authorized agent of the [DPSCS], whether the said records are public or private[.] The intention of this authorization is to provide information which will be utilized for investigation resource material regarding employment with the Department...
I authorize the full and complete disclosure of... employment and reemployment records including background investigation reports, efficiency ratings, accidents or injuries sustained in the course of employment; and any and all records of any arrest, conviction, or incarceration.

Id.

On June 18, 2013, BPD's Human Resources Section sent Carter a letter stating that "there have been no inquiries into your employment history with [BPD] from any outside agencies or ...


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.