United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar, Chief Judge
Davidson (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against
Sarnova, Inc. (“Defendant”), her former employer,
alleging, inter alia, that Defendant discriminated
against her on the basis of disability and retaliated against
her for seeking an accommodation for her disability, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,
and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act
(“FEPA”), Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §
20-1001 et seq. Defendant moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's post-discharge retaliation claims. (ECF No.
14.) The Court granted the motion and dismissed those claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 23.) Now
pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Reconsideration and/or for Clarification of the Order
Dismissing Plaintiff's Post-Discharge Retaliation Claims.
(ECF No. 25.) The issues have been briefed (ECF Nos. 25 &
31), and no hearing is required, Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2016). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration will be DENIED, but she will be
GRANTED LEAVE to file an amended complaint.
relevant background is largely set forth in the Court's
previous order granting Defendant's motion for partial
dismissal. (ECF No. 23.) In her original complaint, Plaintiff
alleged that she was terminated by Defendant in retaliation
for engaging in a protected activity under the ADA and
FEPA-namely, seeking a reasonable accommodation for her
purported disability. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended
complaint in which she alleged for the first time that
Defendant engaged in multiple post-discharge acts of
retaliation against her. Again, Plaintiff contended that this
retaliation was in response to her seeking a reasonable
accommodation for her disability while she was still employed
by Defendant. The Court granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss these new, post-discharge retaliation claims because
Plaintiff had failed to administratively exhaust them.
granting Defendant's motion, the Court expressly rejected
Plaintiffs argument that her retaliation claim fell under an
exception to the ADA's administrative exhaustion
requirement. That exception, which applies to claims arising
out of retaliatory action taken in response to the filing
of an administrative complaint, was not implicated by
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, which alleged that
Defendant's retaliatory action was taken in response to
Plaintiffs request for a reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff
now seeks to amend her complaint, apparently in an attempt to
remedy this deficiency.
seeks to add the following allegations regarding
Defendant's purported post-discharge conduct to her
• Plaintiff signed her charges to the District of
Columbia Office of Human Rights (DCOHR) on June 16, 2015.
• Plaintiffs administrative charge of retaliation
remained pending until the date that the EEOC adopted the
findings of DCOHR and provided notice of suit rights on or
about Nov. 18, 2016.
• In April 2015, POM Medical LLC began discussions with
Plaintiff on how Defendant had handled its products.
• In April 2015, POM Medical LLC was interested in
Plaintiffs skills and experience to employ her or otherwise
contract for her services.
• Negotiations were very strong and continued until July
6, 2015, at which time the company informed her that it would
be imminently meeting with and signing regional distributors.
• After July 6, 2015, POM Medical LLC completely refused
to communicate with Plaintiff.
• Plaintiff is aware that Defendant Sarnova has made
false and defamatory statements that Plaintiff was other than
a competent and successful employee, that Plaintiff had
committed fraud, had taken action with the intention that
these statements be made to others in the industry, and had
issued a no contact order with threats to employees.
• Upon information and belief, Defendant Sarnova
communicated with POM Medical LLC within days after being
notified of the administrative charges and within weeks after
Plaintiff had filed her administrative charges and Defendant
Sarnova provided this same false and defamatory information
to POM Medical LLC.
(ECF No. 25, Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Recons., at 3-4.)
addition, Plaintiff wishes to add to her complaint a claim
for tortious interference with economic relations against
Defendant based on Defendant's alleged interference with
her job discussions with POM Medical. In support of this
entirely new claim, plaintiff sets forth the following
• Plaintiff would have provided competitive services to
POM Medical LLC or otherwise reduced the need for Defendant