United States District Court, D. Maryland
INGRID M. BROWN, Plaintiff,
TARGET, INC., Defendant.
LIPTON HOLLANDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
employment discriminaiion case, I consider a motion for leave
to file a third amended complain,, filed after the close of
discovery by plaintiff Ingrid Brown.
March 26, 2014, Brown filed suit against her former employer,
Target, Inc. ("Target"),  claiming that Target
discriminated against her on the basis of age and race, in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq. ("Title
VII"), and the Age Discrimination Employment Act
("ADEA",, 29 U.S.C. §§ 626 et
seq. ECF 1. After Target filed three motions to dismiss
(ECF 6; ECF 14; ECF 21) and Brown filed two amended
complaints (ECF 13; ECF 19), the parties commenced discovery.
See ECF 35. After two extensions, discovery closed
on June 30, 2016. See ECF 56.
7, 2016, almost two and a half years after suit was filed,
Brown filed "Plaintiffs Motion and Memorandum in Support
of Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading" (ECF 57,
the "Motion",, accompanied by two exhibits. ECF
57-1; ECF 57-2. Target opposes the Motion. ECF 58
("Opposition"). Brown has replied. ECF 61
hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, I will
grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.
Factual and Procedural Background
who is African-American and over the age of forty (ECF 19
¶¶ 2, 7), began work for Target in 2007.
Id. ¶ 7. On September 20, 2010, plaintiff filed
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") an initial charge of employment
discrimination based on race and age. Id.
¶¶ 6, 9. She filed a formal Charge of
Discrimination with the EEOC on January 18, 2011.
Id. ¶9; see also ECF 21-1 at 13
("Charge".. In the Charge (ECF 21-1 at 13),
plaintiff stated, in part: "I have been passed over for
promotion since September 20, 200.. There have been positions
available (Guest Service Team Leader ['GSTL]] and Guest
Service Assistant ['GSA']) that I have been qualified
for, but was not selected for either position. My employer
has hired younger White employees from the outside that [sic]
were not qualified for these positions." She added,
id: "There are no Black Team Leaders in this
store." And, she said, id.: "My employer
has not given me a reason for not promoting me." On or
about December 27, 203;, the EEOC issued a "Notice of
Right to Sue" to plaintiff. ECF 19 ¶ 6.
noted, plaintiff filed this suit on March 26, 2014. ECF 1.
Target filed a motion to dismiss (the "First Motion to
Dismiss"). ECF 6. Plaintiff did not file a timely
response. However, on August 21, 2014, Brown filed an
untimely "Plaintiffs Motion and Memorandum in Support of
Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading" (the
"Motion for Leave"). ECF 10. By Order of August 21,
2014 (ECF 12), I granted the Motion for Leave (ECF 10) and
denied as moot the First Motion to Dismiss (ECF 6).
Amended Complaint again alleged that Target discriminated
against Brown on the basis of her age and race, in violation
of the ADEA and Title VII. ECF 13. Brown asserted that
defendant discriminated by scheduling her to work fewer hours
than younger, white employees; by denying her "training
and promotional opportunities" in favor of younger,
white employees; and retaliated against her for engagement in
civil rights activities protected under Title VII, by
assigning her fewer work hours and denying her training
opportunities and promotion.. Id.
response, Target moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the
"Second Motion to Dismiss"). ECF 14. By Memorandum
Opinion (ECF 17) and Order (ECF 18) of May 20, 205,, I
granted the Second Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14). I agreed with
Target that, with the exception of those claims pertaining to
allegations that Target discriminated against plaintiff on
the basis of her age and/or race by denying promotions, Brown
had failed to exhaust the administrative claims process of
the EEOC. See ECF 17 at 12-13. I also agreed with
Target that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for
failure-to-promote under both the ADEA and Title VII.
Id. at 17-18. In particular, I noted that, although
Brown's EEOC Charge identified two positions for which
she allegedly applied and was denied a promotion, the Amended
Complaint did not identify the positions for which Brown
applied and was rejected. See Id. at 17. In
addition, I concluded that although Brown alleged that
younger persons of a different race received the promotions
she sought, she failed to allege facts to support a
reasonable inference that Brown was not promoted because of
her age or race. Id. at 18. Nevertheless,, I granted
Brown leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, to supplement
her allegations as to her failure-to-promote claims under the
ADEA and Title VII. ECF 18.
filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 11, 2015. ECF 19. In
relevant part, the Second Amended Complaint added the
following factual allegations, id. ¶10:
Plaintiff was clearly more qualified, more experience [sic],
and had [a] better performance and attendance record, to work
as GSTL or GSA, than the individuals who were selected and
promoted as GSTL or GSA. These included:
a. Angelina Baker who is white and [was] less than forty
years of age when she was selected and promoted to the GSTL
in September 2010. The position was not posted before
Angelina Baker was selected and promoted. Plaintiff was never
b. Brieanna Gwinn who is white and [was] less than forty
years of age when she was selected and promoted to the GSA
position sometime in October 2010. The position was not
posted before Brieanna Gwinn was ...