Anne Arundel County Board of Education v. Norville12/12/2005
Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.
Bell, C.J., joins in the judgment only.
The case is a suit alleging age discrimination based upon the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 - 634 (Supp. III 1994), Md. Code (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol., 2005 Cum. Supp.) Art. 49B, § 16(a), common law wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by David Norville, a media specialist employed by the Anne Arundel County Board of Education (the Board) against the Board. Because the ADEA claim was adjudicated on the merits in a suit filed by Norville in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Norville v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ., No. Civ.A. MJG-99-764, 1999 WL 1267696 (D. Md. Nov. 23, 1999), we shall hold that this action is barred by the principles of res judicata.
I.
David Norville was employed by the Board as a Media Production Specialist from 1979 until 1998. Norville received a memorandum from his supervisor, Don Cramer, accusing him of insubordination on or about June 24, 1998. The Board sent Norville a letter in July 1998 explaining that it was reducing the number of positions in Norville's department for budgetary reasons. The Board discharged Norville from his employment as a Media Production Specialist on September 30, 1998.
Norville filed an age discrimination complaint, grounded in ADEA, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Board. Following an investigation, the EEOC closed its file, and advised Norville that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of statutes." The EEOC added, however, that its action did not certify that the Board was in compliance with statutory requirements and informed Norville of his "right to sue" under federal law, either in state or federal court, within 90 days of the notice.
Norville filed a complaint on March 18, 1999, which he amended on June 2, 1999, against the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging six counts: violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), violation of Art. 49B, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Board argued that it is an agency of the State of Maryland, and thus enjoys immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Norville contended that Eleventh Amendment immunity was unavailable under ADEA because the Board was not an arm of the State and hence was not entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
The District Court, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, noted that on October 13, 1999, the Supreme Court had heard oral argument in Kimel v. Bd. of Regents, 139 F.3d 1426 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. granted, 525 U.S. 1121, 119 S.Ct. 901, 142 L.Ed. 901 (1999), aff'd, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed. 2d 522 (2000), presenting two issues bearing on the resolution of the issue before the District Court. The issues before the Supreme Court were whether the ADEA contained a clear abrogation of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by individuals and whether the extension of the ADEA to the States was a proper exercise of Congress's power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby constituting a valid exercise of congressional power to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by individuals. The District Court stayed the action against the Board pending the Kimel decision.
Following the Supreme Court's holding in Kimel that the ADEA did not constitute a proper abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity pur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|