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.

Meadows v. Charles County School Board of Education

United States District Court, D. Maryland

December 5, 2017

DEBRA F. MEADOWS
v.
CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment case is the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for summary judgment, and for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Keller Transportation, Inc. (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 75). 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 will be granted.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background[1]

         Plaintiff's complaint is not a model of clarity. Plaintiff lives in federally subsidized housing with her children, started working for Defendant in 2011, and suffers from dyslexia. (ECF No. 1, at 7-8). Although not stated in the complaint, she stated in the EEOC charge that she is Jewish. (ECF No. 75-5).

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant changed her status from employee to independent contractor for the purposes of her 2015 tax refund. Plaintiff further alleges that she incurred a debt related to her housing after Defendant misreported her income and misclassified her and her daughter as “border[s] and migrant workers.” (ECF No. 1, at 7). She also alleges that Defendant did not give her vacation leave or sick leave and refused to pay her for work she had done during the 2015 school year. She alleges that Defendant put her in a “group [i]nsurance [p]ool[.]” (Id.).

         On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff contacted her Congressman to explain the problem she was having with her taxes. (ECF No. 1-1, at 6-7). Plaintiff was injured on November 2, 2015, and she quit working for Defendant on February 26, 2016. (ECF No. 1, at 7-8).

         B. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on June 2, 2016, alleging that her former employer, Keller Transportation, Inc., discriminated against her on the basis of religion, national origin, and disability when it changed the way it deducted taxes from her paycheck, did not compensate her for time worked, and denied her leave. (ECF No. 75-5). The EEOC issued her a right to sue notice on June 15. (ECF No. 1, at 6). Plaintiff filed suit on August 18 against Defendant, Helen Keller, the Charles County Board of Education (the “Board”), and “Keller Jr[.] Keller III Ernest Bus Service Inc., ” alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, religion, and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq. Plaintiff also alleged retaliation. (Id. at 5).

         On November 23, Ms. Keller moved to dismiss all claims against her. (ECF No. 22). The Board moved for summary judgment on March 1, 2017. (ECF No. 48). On June 16, the court granted Ms. Keller's motion to dismiss and the Board's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 67). Because “Keller Jr[.] Keller III Ernest Bus Service Inc.” was never properly identified and served by Plaintiff, it was dismissed on July 6. (ECF No. 70). After discovery closed, Keller Transportation, Inc., the only remaining defendant, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for summary judgment, or for judgment on the pleadings on August 21. (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff has not responded, despite receiving notice of the opportunity and necessity to respond. (ECF No. 76); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).

         II. Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

         A. Standard of Review

         Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction properly exists in the federal court. See Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., a Div. of Standex Int'l Corp., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). In a 12(b)(1) motion, the court “may consider evidence outside the pleadings” to help determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case before it. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Evans, 166 F.3d at 647. The court should grant the 12(b)(1) motion “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Richmond, 945 F.2d at 768.

         B. ...


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.