United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pending and ready for resolution are a motion to substitute
parties filed by Plaintiff Robert King
(“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 7), and a motion to
dismiss filed by Defendants Dennis Schrader, John Robison,
Thomas Lewis, Inna Taller, Aram Faramarz Mokhtari Aria, Wayne
Noble, and Chandra Wiggins (“Defendants”). (ECF
No. 8). The issues have been briefed, and the court now
rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6.
For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be
granted, and the motion to substitute parties will be denied
is a patient at Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center
(“Perkins”), a psychiatric hospital operated by
the Maryland Department of Health. (ECF No. 1 Parties, ¶
2).Perkins operates a work adjustment program
(“WAP”) which places patients at jobs and pays
them the current minimum wage of $8.75 per hour. (Statement
of Facts, ¶ 2).
March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance with Perkins
stating that he “had waited for seven or eight
months” without receiving a job from WAP and alleging
that he “was, for some reason, being discriminated
against.” (Statement of Facts, ¶ 3). On March 29,
Defendant Noble, a member of Plaintiff's treatment team,
responded to the grievance and explained that Plaintiff had
not received a job placement because Plaintiff was struggling
to control his behavior and his treatment team did not
believe placing him in a job would help his recovery.
(Statement of Facts, ¶ 5). At that time, Noble said the
treatment team determined the best course of action would be
to wait for Plaintiff to show a better ability to
“manage his anger and frustration” before placing
him in a job. (Id.).
April 5, Defendant Wiggins, an employee of WAP, told
Plaintiff he had been placed in a job with the horticulture
program. (Statement of Facts, ¶ 6). The two discussed
Plaintiff's schedule and when he would be available to
work. Wiggins informed Plaintiff that he would also need to
speak with Carol Adams, the program supervisor.
(Id.). The next day Ms. Adams and Plaintiff met, and
Ms. Adams informed Plaintiff that he would need a
doctor's note to participate in the program due to his
urinary incontinence. (Statement of Facts, ¶ 7).
April 7, Plaintiff met with his treatment team, and they
informed him that he would be limited to five hours of work
per week and that if his disabilities interfered with the
job, then he would not be allowed to work. (Statement of
Facts, ¶ 10). On April 12, however, Wiggins told
Plaintiff that he would “not be working in
Horticulture.” (Statement of Facts, ¶ 16). She
explained that the treatment team did not believe the
horticulture program was an appropriate placement for
Plaintiff. (Id.). Wiggins offered Plaintiff a job in
Perkins' canteen. (ECF No. 25-7).
mid-April 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance alleging that he
was being denied an opportunity to work because of his
disability. (ECF No. 25-8, at 2-3). Perkins denied the
grievance. On August 7, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
(Statement of Facts, ¶ 21). On August 31, the EEOC
dismissed his complaint and issued a right to sue notice.
(Statement of Facts, ¶ 22).
November 21, Plaintiff brought this action against
Defendants, a variety of Perkins' officials and the
then-Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, in their individual and official capacities.
He alleged they violated his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
et seq., because: (1) they terminated his job in the
horticulture program due to his urinary incontinence; (2)
they refused to offer a reasonable accommodation (access to
restroom facilities) that would allow him to work in the
horticulture program; and (3) they refused to hire him to
work elsewhere in Perkins (other than horticulture or the
canteen) because of his disability. (ECF No. 1, Federal
Questions, ¶¶ 1-3). Plaintiff sought compensatory
and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and
his release from Perkins. (Id.). On January 9,
Plaintiff moved to substitute Dennis Schrader, the
then-Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Human
Hygiene, for Van T. Mitchell, the former Secretary of the
Maryland Department of Health and Human Hygiene. (ECF No. 7).
January 31, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff submitted his response
in opposition and three supplements. (ECF Nos. 10; 13; 14;
16). Defendants replied. (ECF No. 12.)
Standard of Review
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test
the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of
Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir.
2006). A complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule
8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a
‘showing, ' rather than a blanket assertion, of
entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). That showing must
consist of more than “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action” or “naked
assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citations omitted). At this stage, all well-pleaded
allegations in a complaint must be considered as true,
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and
all factual allegations must be construed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. See Harrison v. Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th
Cir. 1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7
F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)). In evaluating
the complaint, unsupported legal allegations need not be
accepted. Revene v. Charles Cty. Comm'rs, 882
F.2d 870, ...