Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ___________________
`
`
`AARON WILLIAMS
`3637 Columbus Drive
`Baltimore, Maryland 21215
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
`HEALTH
`Herbert R. O'Conor State
`Office Building
`201 W. Preston Street
`Baltimore, Maryland 21201
`
`SERVE ON:
`
`Nancy K. Kopp, State Treasurer
`Statutory Agent
`Goldstein Treasury Building
`80 Calvert Street
`Annapolis, Maryland 21401
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff Aaron Williams (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Williams”), by and through his undersigned
`
`counsel, James M Ray, II and Ray Legal Group, LLC, hereby files suit against the Maryland
`
`Department of Health and states as follows:
`
`THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`This is Mr. Williams’ civil action against the Maryland Department of Health, seeking
`
`damages and/or other legal relief for the Defendant’s violation of Mr. Williams’s rights under
`
`Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 355, as amended, codified at 29 U.S.C §
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`794 (the “Rehabilitation Act”).1
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Aaron Williams is a Maryland citizen and a resident of Baltimore City,
`
`Maryland.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Maryland Department of Health is, and was, at all times relevant a
`
`principal department of the State of Maryland, organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of Maryland. See Maryland Code Annotated, Health, § 2-101.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`3.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. §1331 as a
`
`matter arising under federal law, specifically under 29 U.S.C § 794 as a case arising under the
`
`Rehabilitation Act.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the material
`
`events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred in Baltimore City, Maryland.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act cause of action is authorized by 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
`
`The Plaintiff has a right to trial by jury for his Rehabilitation Act claims.
`
`The Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent, administrative
`
`requirements, and/or legal preconditions to properly file and pursue this civil action and has
`
`exhausted any and all required administrative remedies. This civil action is lawfully filed in this
`
`Court. All conditions precedent have occurred or been performed.
`
`
`1 The Plaintiff intends to amend this Complaint to bring disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and
`retaliation claims under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“FEPA”), Md. Code Ann., State Government
`§ 20-606. While a FEPA plaintiff must wait until “at least 180 days have elapsed since the filing of the administrative
`charge or complaint” (which was filed on February 10, 2021), courts in this district have also held that a state
`government employee must also comply with the notice requirements of the Maryland Tort Claim Act, Md. Code
`Ann., State Government, § 12-101 et. seq. (“MTCA”). While the Plaintiff contends that provisions of the MTCA do
`not apply to state employee FEPA claims, the Plaintiff recently submitted a MTCA notice to the State Treasurer.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Williams began his employment with
`
`the Cost Accounting and
`
`Reimbursements Division (the “Division”) of the Defendant Maryland Department of Health on
`
`or about January 29, 2020. His last position was as an Administrative Assistant. His immediate
`
`supervisor was Manager Deborah Brown-Demery (“Ms. Brown-Demery”), who is non-disabled.
`
`9.
`
` During his entire employment with the Division, Mr. Williams always performed
`
`his job duties in a competent manner and met the Division’s reasonable expectations.
`
`10. Mr. Williams has physical impairments (asthma and being pre-diabetic and
`
`moderately obese) that substantially limit his ability to perform one or more major life activities,
`
`including difficulty in walking long distances, walking up and down stairs, exercising, and
`
`performing activities when temperatures are high. Mr. Williams also has two elderly members of
`
`his family who suffer from asthma and disability, making Mr. Williams and his household a high
`
`risk for COVID-19 exposure.
`
`11.
`
`As a result of Mr. Williams’ disabilities and the COVID-19 risk, Mr. Williams
`
`requested, on his doctor’s instructions, that he be placed on telework as a disability
`
`accommodation, which was granted on or about March 12, 2020.
`
`12.
`
`On May 4, 2020, the Division attempted to reassign Mr. Williams to the 200 W.
`
`Preston St. building for a new assignment. Mr. Williams objected to this reassignment given his
`
`disability conditions. Mr. Williams was advised by Ms. Brown-Demery that Mr. Williams needed
`
`to obtain a note from his doctor’s office addressing his medical conditions and concerns and the
`
`need for continued telework. Mr. Williams provided to the required medical note and continued
`
`to telework.
`
`13.
`
`On August 6, 2020, Mr. Williams entered the office to modify his desktop computer
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`for telework, an adjustment which Mr. Williams was told could not be done remotely. During his
`
`trip to the office, one of Mr. Williams’ co-workers, Judith O’Brien, refused to put her mask on and
`
`would not socially distance. Mr. Williams mentioned Ms. O’Brien’s behavior to Ms. Brown-
`
`Demery, Ms. Brown-Demery responded that the issue previously had been addressed with Ms.
`
`O’Brien. Mr. Williams also learned that constant reminders needed to be sent to staff about the
`
`mask requirement and maintaining social distancing as required by Governor Hogan’s orders.
`
`14.
`
`Beginning in September 2020, Mr. Williams endured several harassing attempts to
`
`force him to return to the office. He received a telephone call from Ms. Brown-Demery demanding
`
`that he obtain a note from his doctor’s office stating that Mr. Williams could return to work
`
`physically in the office two (2) days a week. Mr. Williams’ doctor’s office refused to provide the
`
`note demanded by Ms. Brown-Demery.
`
`15.
`
`As Mr. Williams continued to work remotely as a continued accommodation for
`
`his disabilities, Mr. Williams was targeted, and his work was excessively scrutinized. Ms. Brown-
`
`Demery and others began to “cc” Yolanda Jackson, the Division’s human resourced representative
`
`on all emails that they sent to Mr. Williams. During a telephone conference with Ms. Jackson and
`
`Mr. Williams, Ms. Jackson confirmed that she had noticed Ms. Brown-Demery’s aggressive
`
`attitude toward Mr. Williams.
`
`16.
`
`On December 11, 2020, Mr. Williams was placed on “medical leave” even though
`
`he was able to continue to work remotely, as he had been doing over the last several months.
`
`Although he expressly told the Division, including Ms. Brown-Demery and Ms. Jackson, that he
`
`could continue to work remotely, he was forced to remain on “medical leave” and use his accrued
`
`PTO time. Mr. Williams was told that the decision to place him on “medical leave” was made by
`
`the Division’s management, including Ms. Brown-Demery.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`17. Mr. Williams’ medical leave” ran from December 11, 2020 to January 11, 2021.
`
`18. Mr. Williams was examined at his doctor’s office on January 8, 2021 and was told
`
`that he would need to continue to stay out of the office from January 8, 2021 to February 8, 2021,
`
`but could continue to telework.
`
`19.
`
`On Monday, January 11, 2021, Mr. Williams logged in and waited for work to be
`
`assigned to him. Later that day, Mr. Williams received by email the written note from his doctor’s
`
`office directing that he continue telework from January 8, 2021 through February 8, 2021, and
`
`immediately forwarded that note to the Division.
`
`20.
`
`On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, Mr. Williams again logged in and waited for work
`
`to be assigned to him. Later that day, Mr. Williams received a call from Ms. Jackson that he was
`
`considered to be absent without leave on January 11, 2021 and January 12, 2021, despite having
`
`provided a note from his doctor’s office that he needed to still be on telework.
`
`21. Mr. Williams’ employment was terminated on January 13, 2021.
`
`22.
`
`At all relevant times, the Defendant Maryland Department of Health acting through
`
`its agents, servants and/or employees, including agents, servants and employees of the Division,
`
`who were acting within the scope of their employment. Defendant Maryland Department of Health
`
`is responsible for all actions of the agents, servants and/or employees of the Division.
`
`23.
`
`At all times relevant, the Defendant was aware of Mr. Williams's medical conditions
`
`and/or disabilities and limitations.
`
`24. Mr. Williams has been discriminated and retaliated against (i.e. denied reasonable
`
`accommodations and/or terminated) due to his disability or for being regarded as having a disability,
`
`in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
`
`25.
`
`The Defendant’s actions also were discriminatory and/or in retaliation for Mr.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`Williams engaging in protected activity and/or because he requested reasonable accommodations
`
`and because he was being accommodated (telework) due to his disabilities.
`
`26.
`
`Any non-discriminatory justification for Mr. Williams’s termination was a pretext.
`
`Mr. Williams’s supervisors frequently commented on their satisfaction with his productivity and
`
`work.
`
`COUNT I
`Rehabilitation Act Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodations -- § 29 U.S.C. § 794
`(Plaintiff v. Maryland Department of Health)
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 794 provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability
`
`in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his
`
`disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
`
`discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any
`
`program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.”
`
`29.
`
`Each Defendant is a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”
`
`under 29 U.S.C § 794. Specifically, the Defendant is a “program or activity” under 29 U.S.C §
`
`794 because the Defendant is “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other
`
`instrumentality of a State or of a local government.”
`
`30.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 705(20), which applies to all of Chapter 16 (Vocational Rehabilitation
`
`and Other Rehabilitation Services) of Title 29, including 29 U.S.C. § 794, provides that the term
`
`“individual with a disability” means “any person who has a disability as defined in section 12102
`
`of Title 42.”
`
`31. Mr. Williams has a “disability,” as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12102, because he
`
`has (a) a physical impairments (asthma and being pre-diabetic and moderately obese) that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`substantially limit one or more of his major life activities (including difficulty in walking long
`
`distances, walking up and down stairs, exercising, and performing activities when temperatures
`
`are high), (b) a record of these physical impairments and/or (c) been regarded by the Defendant
`
`has having such a physical impairment.
`
`32. Mr. Williams is a “qualified individual” because he, with or without reasonable
`
`accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the Administrative Assistant and/or other
`
`positions available at the Division and/or Defendant Department of Health.
`
`33.
`
`By not continuing to engage in the interactive process with Mr. Williams, not
`
`allowing Mr. Williams to continue his telework, and not transferring Mr. Williams to an available
`
`position at the Division and/or Defendant Department of Health that fit within Mr. Williams’s
`
`work restrictions, the Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Williams’s disabilities.
`
`But for Mr. Williams's disabilities, the Defendant would not have discriminated against Mr.
`
`Williams.
`
`34.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Mr. Williams was
`
`prejudiced, including not being able to work and having his employment terminated by the
`
`Defendant, and has suffered substantial pecuniary losses and other damages.
`
`COUNT II
`Rehabilitation Act Discrimination -- § 29 U.S.C. § 794
`(Plaintiff v. Maryland Department of Health)
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 794 provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability
`
`in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his
`
`disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
`
`discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.”
`
`37.
`
`The Defendant is a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”
`
`under 29 U.S.C § 794. Specifically, the Defendant is a “program or activity” under 29 U.S.C §
`
`794 because the Defendant is “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other
`
`instrumentality of a State or of a local government.”
`
`38.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 705(20) provides that the term “individual with a disability” means
`
`“any person who has a disability as defined in section 12102 of Title 42.”
`
`39. Mr. Williams has a “disability,” as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12102, because he
`
`has (a) a physical impairments (asthma and being pre-diabetic and moderately obese) that
`
`substantially limit one or more of his major life activities (including difficulty in walking long
`
`distances, walking up and down stairs, exercising, and performing activities when temperatures
`
`are high), (b) a record of these physical impairments and/or (c) been regarded by the Defendant
`
`has having such a physical impairment.
`
`40. Mr. Williams is a “qualified individual” because he, with or without reasonable
`
`accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the Administrative Assistant and/or other
`
`positions available at the Division and/or the Defendant Department of Health.
`
`41.
`
`The Defendant failed to allow Mr. Williams to continue to telework, failed to
`
`transfer Mr. Williams to an available position at the Division and/or the Defendant Department of
`
`Health that fit within Mr. Williams’s work restrictions and terminated Mr. Williams’s employment
`
`solely because of his disabilities. But for Mr. Williams’s disabilities, the Defendant would not have
`
`discriminated against Mr. Williams.
`
`42.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Mr. Williams was
`
`prejudiced, including not being able to work and having his employment terminated by the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`Defendant, and has suffered substantial pecuniary losses and other damages.
`
`COUNT III
`Rehabilitation Act Retaliation -- § 29 U.S.C. § 794
`(Plaintiff v. Maryland Department of Health)
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 794 provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability
`
`in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his
`
`disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
`
`discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any
`
`program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.”
`
`45.
`
`The Defendant is a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”
`
`under 29 U.S.C. § 794. Specifically, the Defendant is a “program or activity” under 29 U.S.C. §
`
`794 because the Defendant is “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other
`
`instrumentality of a State or of a local government.”
`
`46.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 705(20) provides that the term “individual with a disability” means
`
`“any person who has a disability as defined in section 12102 of Title 42.”
`
`47. Mr. Williams has a “disability,” as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12102, because he
`
`has (a) a physical impairments (asthma and being pre-diabetic and moderately obese) that
`
`substantially limit one or more of his major life activities (including difficulty in walking long
`
`distances, walking up and down stairs, exercising, and performing activities when temperatures
`
`are high), (b) a record of these physical impairments and/or (c) been regarded by the Defendant
`
`has having such a physical impairment.
`
`48. Mr. Williams is a “qualified individual” because he, with or without reasonable
`
`accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the Administrative Assistant and/or other
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`positions available at the Division and/or the Defendant Department of Health.
`
`49. Mr. Williams engaged in protected activity when he received a reasonable
`
`accommodation from the Division in 2020 and when he continued to request a reasonable
`
`accommodation in January 2021.
`
`50.
`
`The Defendant terminated Mr. Williams’s employment solely because he had
`
`received a reasonable accommodation and requested the same, continued accommodations due to
`
`his disabilities. But for Mr. Williams’s disabilities and protected activity, the Defendant would
`
`not have discriminated against Mr. Williams.
`
`51.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Mr. Williams was
`
`prejudiced, including having his employment terminated by the Defendant, and has suffered
`
`substantial pecuniary losses and other damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Aaron Williams respectfully prays that this Court grant the
`
`following relief:
`
`a.
`
`An order permanently enjoining and restraining the Defendant, its agents, officers,
`
`servants and employees from discriminating, interfering and/or retaliating against
`
`other employees due to their disabilities;
`
`b.
`
`Compensation for back pay, front pay, and compensation for other lost employment
`
`benefits, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and costs
`
`and reasonable attorney’ fees and expenses against the Defendant in an amount in
`
`excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00);
`
`Reinstatement; and
`
`Any and all additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`10
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01988-TDC Document 1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`RAY LEGAL GROUP, LLC
`
`By: /s/ James M. Ray
`James M. Ray, II (#012773)
`jim.ray@raylegalgroup.com
`8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 904
`Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
`Phone: (301) 755-5656
`Fax: (301) 755-5627
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Aaron Williams demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`
` /s/ James M. Ray, II
`James M. Ray, II
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`