United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cynthia Fain brings this action against her former employer.
Defendant BAF Systems Technology Solutions & Services
Inc. ("BAE"). alleging gender-based discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2. and intentional infliction of emotional
distress C'HED"). Now pending before the Court is
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 7. No hearing is
necessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following
reasons. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
began working for Defendant on April 7. 2008 as a quality
auditor and. in October 2013, was selected to fill the
newly-created position of Talent Manager, working under
Orania Colombo in the Business Operations Unit. ECF No. 1 T
11. Plaintiff was universally regarded as an exemplary
employee, consistently received stellar performance reviews,
and was awarded the BAE Chairman's Silver Award as a
result of her work as Talent Manager. Id.
While working under Colombo. Plaintiff frequently, and with
Colombo's acknowledgment and approval, worked from home
using physical copies of necessary documents instead of
logging into BAE's remote network because of the slow
speed of the network connection. Id. ¶¶
announced her retirement from BAE in November 2015.
Id. ¶ 18. and Jeffery King took over as manager
of the Business Operations Unit on January 7. 2016.
Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges that King took a
number of actions indicative of his bias against female
employees, which included, socializing with male members of
the team to the exclusion of the remaining female members,
id. ¶ 20: excluding, dismissing, belittling, or
otherwise ignoring the female members, id. ¶
22: and ceasing regular staff meetings and only sharing
work-related information with the male members of the
Business Operations Unit to the exclusion of the female
members, id. ¶ 23.
February 2. 2016. Plaintiff received an email form Jennifer
Nestor of the Ethics and Business Conduct Unit instructing
her to report to a meeting on the morning of February 4.
Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff asked King about the
purpose of the meeting, and he responded that "even if
he knew, he would not have told her." Id.
During the February 4 meeting, "in an
interrogation-style setting." Nestor and Janel Wilson
from Human Resources questioned whether Plaintiff signed into
the BAE remote network when working from home. Id.
¶ 26. Plaintiff responded that when working on a
presentation or research, she did not sign into the network,
but that all work had been approved by Colombo. Id., see
also Id. ¶¶ 16. 17. Plaintiff alleges that
during and prior to this meeting, she notified BAE management
of the need for training on time keeping. Id. ¶
26. Plaintiff alleges that she left that meeting "with
feelings of fear, humiliation, and extreme anxiety."
February 7, Plaintiff notified King that she would be taking
a sick day on the following day. On February 8. Plaintiff
received a "harassing" call from King and Wilson
insisting that she report to work. Id. ¶ 27. In
response. Plaintiff advised King that she had a doctor's
appointment and needed blood work and would not be coming in.
id. While at the doctor's appointment. King
called a second time and left a voicemail message notifying
Plaintiff that her access to the building had been revoked.
Id. ¶ 28. While Plaintiff characterizes her
departure from BAE as a termination, she states that
"[n]o BAE employee ever provided [her] with any official
notice of termination." Id. ¶ 28.
alleges that she suffers from systemic lupus erythematosus,
which can result in flare-ups caused by extreme stress.
Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges that King's
treatment of her. including the "two harassing telephone
calls on February 8. 2016" caused a flare-up of her
condition and amplified its effects, which included rashes,
mouth sores, and severe muscle fatigue." Id.
¶¶ 29. 30. In her Complaint. Plaintiff notes that
"the purported reason for her termination was alleged
inconsistencies in her time card" but alleges that was a
pretext for the true reason for her firing-gender
discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 31. 32. I
STANDARD OF REVIEW
state a claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a complaint, relying on only well-pled factual
allegations, must state at least a "plausible claim for
relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). The "mere recital of elements of a cause of
action, supported only by conclusory statements, is not
sufficient to survive a motion made pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6)." Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435.
439 (4th Cir. 2012). To determine whether a claim has crossed
"the line from conceivable to plausible." the court
must employ a "context-specific inquiry, " drawing
on the court's "experience and common sense."
Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 679-80. When performing this
inquiry, the court accepts "all well-pled facts as true
and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the
complaint." Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v.
Consiimeraffuirs.com. Inc., 591 F.3d 250. 255 (4th Cir.
VII makes it illegal for an employer "to discharge any
individual or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual's race, color, religion, sex. or national
origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The parties
dispute whether the Complaint contains sufficient factual