On May 1, 2013, Maryland’s newest federal judge, George Levi Russell, III, dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former employee of a kidney dialysis clinic near Baltimore. In Ezeh v. Bio-Med. Applications of Md., No. 11-3411 (D. Md. 2013), Judge Russell granted summary judgment to the employer and dismissed plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and race and national origin discrimination.
The plaintiff, Perpetua Ezeh, is of Nigerian descent and worked as a clinical manager at a dialysis clinic in Rosedale. She alleged that her manager, a white woman, made racist comments such as “the Africans have got to go,” held her to stricter performance standards than white counterparts, and “pitted” African employees against one another. Ezeh also alleged that she was retaliated against when she was fired shortly after sending an email to management complaining about the way her manager treated her. The company defended against the claims by presenting evidence that she was an ineffective manager who was not meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations.
In granting summary judgment to the employer, Judge Russell refused to consider the evidence of racist comments because they were hearsay statements not supported by any evidence in the record. Judge Russell also rejected the claims of disparate treatment, finding no evidence that any distinction in treatment was motivated by discriminatory animus. Ezeh’s retaliation claims were dismissed because she could not prove that the persons who made the decision to end her employment were aware of the complaints she had raised in her email.
There are a couple of important take-aways from the Ezeh decision. First, the company had good documentation showing that Ezeh was not performing satisfactorily, and her manager was able to testify to her performance deficiencies in her deposition. When Ezeh failed to present evidence to the contrary, it enabled the Court to grant summary judgment to her employer. Second, the fact that the decision-makers were not aware of her internal complaint made it impossible for her to prove causation in her retaliation claim – thereby reinforcing the importance of limiting the universe of persons who are made aware of employee complaints.