Manikhi v. Mass Transit Administration

EYLER, Judge. On March 14, 1997, Jacqueline Manikhi, appellant, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against multiple defendants, alleging violations of her civil rights, various State torts, and other claims. One of the defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Rule 2-303, and all defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 2-322(b). The motions to dismiss set forth in detail why the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

At the hearing on the motions, held on September 17, 1997, the hearing judge granted the motion to strike, observing that she “was up around page 40 — something, and [her] question was ‘So what are the causes of action?’ ” 1 Appellant was given leave to file an amended complaint, and on October 6, ⁵⁰⁶ 1997, appellant filed an amended complaint with an attached 50-page affidavit. The defendants, appellees herein, the Mass Transit Administration (MTA), Roy Ovid, Vernon Parsons, Wade Moragne-el, Charles Pettus, Ennis Fonder, and Nelson Zollicoffer, in official and individual capacities, filed motions to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Some of the appellees moved to strike the affidavit. The circuit court granted the appellees’ motions to strike the affidavit and motions to dismiss, with the exception of a battery claim against appellee Ovid in his individual capacity.

The rulings were announced in open court, and appellant did not request further leave to amend. 2 The trial of the battery claim began on April 27, 1998, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee Ovid on April 30, 1998. Appellant noted an appeal to this Court and challenges portions of the judgment granting the motions to dismiss. Allegations of the Amended Complaint In essence, appellant alleged the following in the amended complaint. Appellant is a female African American and was employed by the MTA beginning in 1989.

In 1991, she began working in MTA’s Kirk Avenue shop as an “A-Cleaner” and was responsible for cleaning vehicles. Appellant worked the night shift. Ovid, “a male of African descent from Columbia, South America,” also worked as an A-Cleaner on the night shift during the relevant time period. Appellant was physically and verbally abused by Ovid from 1991 to 1995.

The amended complaint detailed numerous acts by Ovid, including allegations that he touched appellant in a sexually and physically abusive manner, that he exposed himself to her, and that ⁵⁰⁷ he verbally teased her and threatened to perform various acts of violence against her. Parsons, a male Caucasian, was employed by the MTA at the Kirk Avenue location during the relevant time period and was appellant’s superior. Moragne-el, a male African-American, was chief superintendent at the Kirk Avenue location beginning in 1995. The amended complaint alleged that both Parsons and Moragne-el had knowledge of the harassment but did nothing to stop it and instead condoned and encouraged Ovid’s conduct.

Appellant further alleged that the “last straw” occurred on October 11, 1995, when appellee Ovid elbowed her and called her a “bitch.” On October 13, 1995, appellant filed a sexual harassment complaint with the MTA, which was resolved in her favor on December 8, 1995. In 1996, appellant transferred to another location in order to get away from the unlawful conduct and took a lower position as a “B-Cleaner,” which allowed her to work alone. In approximately August, 1996, appellee Ovid was criminally convicted based on his harassment of appellant, and the conviction was reduced to probation before judgment after Ovid attended counseling. Pettus, a male African-American, was president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1300, of which appellant was a member.

Fonder, a male African-American, was recording secretary of Local 1300, and Zollicoffer, a male African-American, was a Local 1300 official during the relevant time period. The amended complaint alleged that Pettus, Fonder, and Zollicoffer condoned and encouraged the abuse; that MTA knew or should have known of the conduct but did nothing to stop it; and that the co-defendants protected Ovid. Appellant alleged the following in specific counts: Count I — battery against Ovid; Count II — false imprisonment against Ovid; Count III — aiding and abetting against all defendants; Count IV — civil conspiracy against all defendants; ⁵⁰⁸ Count V — discriminatory harassment/hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against the MTA; Count VI — retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against the MTA; Count VII — deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual defendants; Count VIII — a conspiracy to deprive appellant of her civil rights because of racial and class-based animus in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) against the individual defendants; Count X 3 — a conspiracy to interfere with justice in state courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2) against Ovid, Parsons, and Moragne-el; Count XI — criminal acts of violence against appellant motivated by gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 13981 against Ovid, Parsons, and Moragne-el; Count XII — violations of due process, equal protection, and free speech under Articles 24 and 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights against the individual defendants; An unnumbered count — intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; Count XIII — slander against Ovid and Moragne-el. Questions Presented Appellant presents the following questions, which we have rephrased in part: 1.

Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellant’s Title VII discrimination claims against her employer, MTA? 2. Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellant’s discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and equal protection claims under Article XXIV of the Maryland Declaration of ⁵⁰⁹ Rights against individuals Ovid, Parsons, Moragne-el, Pettus, Fonder, and Zollicoffer? 3. Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellant’s false imprisonment claim against Ovid? 4. Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 13981 Gender Motivated Violence Act claim against Ovid, Parsons, and Moragne-el? 5.

Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy claims against the MTA, Ovid, Parsons, Moragne-el, Pettus, Fonder, and Zollicoffer? On appeal, appellant presents no argument with respect to the battery claim in Count I, the 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claims in Counts VIII and X, the Article 40 and remaining Article XXIV violations alleged in Count XII, or the slander claim in Count XIII. Consequently, those claims are not properly before us. Finally, appellant challenges — in footnote 4 of her brief— the circuit court’s decision to strike the affidavit that was attached to and incorporated in the amended complaint.

The lower court stated that it would strike the affidavit because it was a “regurgitation” of material in the original complaint that the court had labeled “outrageous” and “totally unnecessary” and that had prompted the court to strike the original complaint. Before this Court, appellant’s argument in support of the affidavit does not address the valid central legal concern with the material: that it does not comply with Rule 2-303(b), prohibiting “argument ... or any immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” in a pleading. We therefore deem the point waived and affirm this aspect of the lower court’s order. Consequently, we do not consider the contents of the affidavit in answering the questions presented.

Standard of Review A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. Bobo v. State, 346 Md. 706, 709 , 697 A.2d 1371 (1997); Popham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 333 Md. 136 , 140 n. 2, 634 A.2d 28 (1993).

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for ⁵¹⁰ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we must assume “the truth of all well-pleaded facts, as well as the reasonable and logical inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” Popham, 333 Md. at 140 n. 2, 634 A.2d 28 . See also Board of Educ. v. Browning, 333 Md. 281, 286 , 635 A.2d 373 (1994); Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 443 , 620 A.2d 327 (1993). The pleader must allege facts with specificity, and this Court need not consider wholly conclusory charges in a complaint. See Bobo, 346 Md. at 708-09 , 697 A.2d 1371 ; Berman v. Karvounis, 308 Md. 259, 265 , 518 A.2d 726 (1987).

Further, “any ambiguity or uncertainty in the allegations bearing on whether the complaint states a cause of action must be construed against the pleader.” Ronald M. Sharrow, Chartered v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 306 Md. 754, 768 , 511 A.2d 492 (1986).

See also Bobo, 346 Md. at 709 , 697 A.2d 1371 ; Popham, 333 Md. at 140 n. 2, 634 A.2d 28 ; Browning, 333 Md. at 286 , 635 A.2d 373 . Dismissal is only proper if, after the allegations of the complaint are construed in this light, the facts and allegations in the complaint would fail to afford the plaintiff relief if proven. See Bobo, 346 Md. at 709 , 697 A.2d 1371 ; Browning, 333 Md. at 286 , 635 A.2d 373 . Discussion Appellant, in the amended complaint, apparently attempted to remove much of the material that was held to have been improperly included in the original complaint in violation of Rule 2-303(b).

Nevertheless, as explained below, when we apply the standard of review to the amended complaint, we conclude that it remains substantively deficient, and we affirm the judgment. 1. The circuit court dismissed the Title VII claims in the amended complaint on two alternative grounds: that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims because the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under Maryland Code (1993 Repl.Vol.), Transportation § 7-602; and that the allegations of the amended complaint were insufficient to state a ⁵¹¹ Title VII cause of action. With respect to its jurisdiction, the circuit court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all claims asserted against the MTA, namely, the Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims, as well as the State law aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Appellant contests the circuit court’s decision to dismiss each of these claims.

Therefore, as an initial matter, we shall discuss the circuit court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims against the MTA. 4 As we mention in footnote 4, supra, a circuit court has jurisdiction over individual claims if it has “the power to ⁵¹² render a judgment over that class of cases within which a particular one falls.” First Federated Commodity Trust Corp. v. Commissioner of Securities, 272 Md. 329, 335 , 322 A.2d 539 (1974) (citing Fooks’ Ex’rs v. Ghingher, 172 Md. 612, 622-23 , 192 A. 782 (1937)). The circuit courts of this state are courts of general jurisdiction with the power to adjudicate Title VII claims and State law torts subject to limitations on that jurisdiction that may be imposed by law. See Md.Code (1998 Repl.Vol.), Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 1-501.

We therefore consider whether the arbitration provision of § 7-602 of the Transportation article limits the jurisdiction of the circuit court to render a judgment on any of appellant’s claims against her employer, the MTA. 5 Section 7-602, entitled, “Arbitration in labor disputes,” provides in part: (a) “Labor dispute” defined. — In this section, “labor dispute” is to be construed broadly and includes any controversy as to: (1) Wages, salaries, hours, or other working conditions; (2) Benefits, including health and welfare, sick leave, insurance, pension, or retirement provisions; (3) Grievances that arise; or ⁵¹³ (4) Collective bargaining agreements, including: (i) The making or maintaining of any collective bargaining agreement; (ii) The terms to be included in it; or (iii) Its interpretation or application. (b) Unresolved labor dispute to be submitted, to arbitration board. — If, in a labor dispute between the [MTA] and any employees ..., collective bargaining does not result in agreement, the [MTA] shall submit the dispute to an arbitration board. (d) Majority determination is final and binding. — A majority determination of the board is final and binding on all disputed matters. The MTA argues that appellant’s discrimination claims under Title VII and common law intentional tort claims each constituted a “labor dispute” between appellant and the MTA that was subject to binding arbitration under the statute — arbitration that would be final on all disputed matters.

The MTA asserts that the term “labor dispute” is to be construed broadly and that each of appellant’s claims in essence alleged a labor dispute as to “working conditions,” “grievances,” or issues regarding the “interpretation or application” of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Thus, the MTA argues, the circuit court properly dismissed appellant’s claims against it because the claims were never submitted to arbitration. Appellant’s Title VII claims in the amended complaint, however, do not seek an express ruling on the interpretation or application of her CBA, 6 and the plain language of § 7-602 suggests that the statute was never intended to mandate arbitration of the types of claims that appellant makes against the MTA. To the extent that the scope of the term “working conditions” in § 7 — 602(a)(1) is ambiguous, the doctrine of ejusdem generis confines its meaning to the class ⁵¹⁴ of items described by the immediately preceding enumeration.

See, e.g., In re Wallace W., 333 Md. 186, 190-91 , 634 A.2d 53 (1993) (discussing the rule of ejusdem generis); Smith v. Higinbothom, 187 Md. 115, 130 , 48 A.2d 754 (1946) (same). Thus, we construe the term “working conditions” to be limited to conditions in the nature of wages, salaries, and hours— conditions that define the work to be performed and the compensation to be paid. Similarly, there is no indication in the groups of controversies listed under § 7-602(a) that the term “Grievances,” even if construed broadly, was intended to preclude litigation between the MTA and its employees that is based on federal civil rights legislation and Maryland common law intentional torts. If the Legislature had intended to confine all conceivable litigation between the MTA and its employees to arbitration, there would be no need to enumerate several particular categories of potential disputes.

Additionally, to the extent that § 7-602 is in derogation of the common law of Maryland, the statute must be strictly construed. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Gussin, 350 Md. 552, 562 , 714 A.2d 188 (1998). We conclude that, absent clear language to the contrary, the Legislature did not intend to confine Title VII and intentional tort actions between the MTA and its employees to arbitration. Consequently, the circuit court had jurisdiction over appellant’s claims against the MTA.

As we discuss in the remainder of Part 1 and in Part 5 of this opinion, however, we agree with the circuit court’s alternate determination that appellant’s amended complaint failed to allege any cognizable claims against the MTA. A. Title VII — Hostile Working Environment Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “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)(l) (1994). Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. See Meritor Sav. ⁵¹⁵ Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 , 106 S.Ct. 2399 , 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986).

In addition to prohibiting sexual harassment that is explicitly tied to the grant or denial of an economic quid pro quo, Title VII prohibits sexual harassment that creates a work environment that is sufficiently hostile or abusive to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment. See Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB, 477 U.S. at 67 , 106 S.Ct. 2399 . For hostile environment sexual harassment to be actionable, the harassment must be severe or pervasive.

Id. See also Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 ,-, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 2264 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) (“The principal significance of the distinction is to instruct that Title VII is violated by either explicit or constructive alterations in the terms or conditions of employment and to explain the latter must be severe or pervasive.”). An actionably hostile work environment may be created by the sexual harassment of an employee by a co-employee. See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (d) (1998); Spicer v. Virginia, Dept. of Corrections, 66 F.3d 705, 708, 710 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc); Wilson v. Southern Nat’l Bank, 900 F.Supp. 803, 806, 809-10 (W.D.N.C.1995), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1184 (4th Cir.1996).

Cf. Wall v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1084, 1091 (M.D.N.C.1990) (Title VII racial discrimination case). To plead such a cause of action successfully, the plaintiff must allege “(1) the subject conduct was unwelcome; (2) it was based on the sex of the plaintiff; (3) it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiffs conditions of employment and to create an abusive work environment; and (4) it was imputable on some factual basis to the employer.” Spicer, 66 F.3d at 710 . See also Hartsell v. Duplex Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766 , 772 (4th Cir.1997).

In Katz v. Dole, 709 F.2d 251 (4th Cir.1983), the Fourth Circuit discussed at length the fourth requirement above: Except in situations where a proprietor, partner or corporate officer participates personally in the harassing behavior, the plaintiff will have the additional responsibility of demonstrating the propriety of holding the employer liable under some theory.... We believe that in a “condition of ⁵¹⁶ work” [i.e., hostile work environment] case the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of a sexually hostile working environment and took no prompt and adequate remedial action. The plaintiff may do this by proving that complaints about the harassment were lodged with the employer or that the harassment was so pervasive that employer awareness may be inferred. 709 F.2d at 255 (citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit further explored this standard in Spicer, supra, stating, “When presented with the existence of illegal conduct, employers can be required to respond promptly and effectively, but when an employer’s remedial response results in the cessation of the complained of conduct, liability must cease as well.” Spicer, 66 F.3d at 711 .

We conclude that the allegations of appellant’s amended complaint, when construed in accordance with the applicable standard of review, fail to satisfy the pleading requirements under the fourth element of a hostile environment claim. Assuming that appellant appropriately alleged that she was a victim of sexual harassment by her co-worker, Ovid, appellant fails to allege facts from which the MTA could be held liable for Ovid’s harassment. We note initially that several of the factual allegations of the amended complaint are irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory, and ambiguous. ' Our review of the pleading to glean support for appellant’s Title VII hostile environment claim yields the following factual allegations. Appellant and Ovid were both “A-Cleaners” for the MTA at the Kirk Avenue location.

Ovid subjected appellant to sustained verbal abuse of a sexual nature from 1991 to some time in 1996, with the exception of a period of time from 1993 to early 1994, when appellant had temporarily transferred to another work location “to escape the unlawful conduct against her.” During this time, Ovid also physically abused appellant by “thrusting his penis in her ⁵¹⁷ thigh,” grabbing her breast and arms, and elbowing her. 7 At some time prior to 1996, unidentified union co-workers retaliated against appellant for being a “snitch,” and spray painted “Jackie is a fink” and “Jackie is a rat” inside the wash house at the Kirk Avenue work site. The Chief Supervisor of Kirk Division at the time of the spray painting incident apologized for the incident and stated that those responsible for it would be disciplined. This supervisor did nothing further about the incident, however, and disregarded “complaints about Defendant Ovid.” Appellant at some point in time complained “about Defendant Ovid” to Night Foreman Vernon Parsons. Parsons did nothing in response to these complaints.

At some point, appellant was crying in the lunch room because of something Ovid had said to her, when Parsons entered and jokingly said to appellant, “did your boyfriend Defendant Ovid [sic] do something to upset you?” At another point in time, Parsons asked appellant if she was peeping or spying on Ovid, and that Ovid said she was. Appellant further alleged that the “last straw” occurred on October 11, 1995, when Ovid elbowed her and called her a “bitch.” Apparently, on October 13, 1995, she filed an internal complaint with the MTA based on claims of sexual harassment, and the internal complaint was resolved in her favor on December 8, 1995. 8 On October 15, 1995, Wade Moragne-el, Chief Superintendent of Kirk Division as of 1995, confronted appellant in the yard in front of other employees. Moragne-el stated that if appellant did not resolve her differences with Ovid she would be terminated. Moragne-el further stated that he believed appellant had harassed Ovid because Ovid ⁵¹⁸ refused to have sex with her.

Appellant also asserted that several co-workers, Parsons, Moragne-el, and the union appellees all attempted to dissuade her from taking formal action against Ovid. Appellant does not specifically allege that any incidents of sexual harassment occurred after the favorable resolution of her internal complaint. The factual averments of the amended complaint are insufficient to allege sexual harassment by any MTA employee other than Ovid. The alleged conduct of appellant’s superiors, while possibly demeaning and unhelpful, does not constitute discrimination because of appellant’s sex.

Further, the specific allegations of sexual harassment all predate the resolution of appellant’s internal complaint. While we are not given information relating to the specific actions taken by the MTA on the internal complaint, the amended complaint states that the procedure was resolved in appellant’s favor. There are no facts, therefore, that the MTA’s response to appellant’s formal complaint was less than legally adequate under the rule in Spicer, supra. Consequently, we shall focus on the sufficiency of the pre-internal complaint allegations to support the inference that Ovid’s harassment of appellant was so pervasive that the MTA could be charged with awareness of it before appellant invoked the formal internal complaint procedure.

Appellant’s account of her previous supervisor’s notice of the graffiti in the wash house does not support notice of sexual harassment. It is clear that only harassment related to the plaintiffs gender is actionable as sex discrimination. See Hartsell, 123 F.3d at 772. The spray painted slurs are not sexual in nature, and appellant does not allege that the slurs were in retaliation for, or otherwise related to, sexual harassment complaints voiced by her.

Appellant does not even allege that Ovid was the subject of an informal complaint by her at that time, or that the incident was in any way related to her contact with Ovid. The statement by appellant’s supervisor that those responsible for the spray painting incident would be disciplined does not demonstrate that he had notice of severe or pervasive sexual harassment by Ovid. At a subsequent ⁵¹⁹ point in the complaint, appellant alleges that she complained to the same supervisor “about Defendant Ovid,” but that those complaints were disregarded. The nature of this complaint is not specified.

Moreover, appellant’s specific statements informing Moragne-el of the harassment occurred on October 15, 1995— after appellant had filed an internal complaint but before it was resolved in her favor. It is not disputed that the MTA had notice of appellant’s complaints at this time. Finally, the taunting comments Parsons allegedly made to appellant simply do not provide notice to the MTA of a hostile work environment. The comments are presented in a conversational context within which Parsons engages in verbal horseplay or teasing that is only tangentially based on appellant’s sex.

The statements themselves do not indicate that Parsons had knowledge of unwelcome severe or pervasive sexual harassment by Ovid. The comments, like the general statement that appellant complained to Parsons “about Defendant Ovid,” are more consistent with a general animosity between appellant and Ovid. In any event, appellant does not allege a single instance in which she or anyone else told Parsons that Ovid was sexually harassing her. Cf.

Harris v. L & L Wings, Inc., 132 F.3d 978, 982 (4th Cir.1997) (employer charged with notice of hostile work environment where, in the absence of a formal internal complaint procedure, plaintiffs made repeated, specific complaints to several managers, and company President must have witnessed graffiti and pornography covering the walls of the workplace). 9 The amended complaint describes a torrent of sexual harassment of which MTA had no notice prior to appellant’s formal complaint. But the amended complaint is conspicuously devoid of specific allegations of harassment subsequent to ⁵²⁰ the resolution of appellant’s internal complaint. For these reasons, appellant’s amended complaint fails to state a Title VII hostile work environment claim against the MTA. B. Title VII — Retaliation Appellant argues that the amended complaint stated a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII.

Appellant points to allegations that, after she filed the internal complaint, the union appellees told her that she should omit some allegations against Ovid, that they agreed with Moragne-el and Parsons that she “would lose a day’s work,” that Moragne-el told her to reconcile her differences against Ovid or she would be terminated, and that some time in 1996 she took a lower paying position at another location “to get away from unlawful conduct against her.” To establish a cause of action for retaliation in violation of Title VII, a plaintiff must prove that she “engaged in a protected activity, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and that the two were causally related.” Glover v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 413 (4 th Cir.1999). Once this is done, the burden shifts to the employer to show that there was a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, and, if this is done, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reason is pretextual. See Munday v. Waste Management of N. America, Inc., 126 F.3d 239 , 242 (4 th Cir.1997). The requirement of an adverse employment action focuses “on the question whether there has been discrimination in what could be characterized as ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting and compensation.” Settle v. Baltimore County, 34 F.Supp.2d 969, 987 (D.Md.1999) (quoting Page v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 227, 233 (4 th Cir.1981) (en banc)).

We find the above statements of the law persuasive. Appellant’s retaliation claim fails because she does not allege that the MTA took an adverse employment action ⁵²¹ against her. 10 First, the allegations regarding actions of the union appellees are irrelevant to appellant’s retaliation claim, which is made against the MTA alone. Second, in alleging that the union appellees agreed with Moragne-el and Parsons that appellant would lose a day of work, appellant does not mention whether this agreement was carried out, whether appellant was denied compensation for a day of work, or when any such action took place. We note that Title VII retaliation does not reach mediate decisions but extends only to ultimate employment decisions.

See, e.g., Munday, 126 F.3d at 243 (supervisor’s conduct in failing to address employment related complaints of the plaintiff, yelling at the plaintiff, and telling others to ignore and spy on her, did not amount to adverse employment action because plaintiffs complaints were addressed, investigated, and corrected by other agents of the employer). The amended complaint asserts that the internal complaint was resolved in appellant’s favor, and, as we mention above, the amended complaint thereafter is devoid of specific allegations of harassment or retaliation. Finally, appellant’s decision to transfer to another work location and accept a lower paying job is similarly based on a general allegation that, despite the favorable resolution of her internal complaint, appellant had to get away from the “unlawful conduct against her.” We decline to construe these ambiguities in appellant’s favor and hold that the amended complaint fails to state a claim for retaliation under Title VII. 2. A. Claims Based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Appellant asserted claims against Ovid, Parsons, Moragneel, and the union appellees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Count VII of the amended complaint provides in part: 61. Paragraphs 1-60 and 72-99 are incorporated by reference as though set forth herein. ⁵²² 62. Defendants Ovid, Parsons, Moragne-el, Pettus, Fonder, and Zollicoffer, acting in their individual capacities under color of state law, deprived Ms. Manikhi of her rights to be free from discrimination based on gender, race or ethnicity, secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The remaining paragraphs of Count VII contain factual allegations and a demand for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as fees and costs, based on the violations of appellant’s rights as asserted in paragraph 62.

The statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 imposes civil liability on anyone “who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any ... person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Section 1983 is not a source of substantive right but a method of obtaining redress for violations of federally created rights. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 , 114 S.Ct. 807 , 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 , 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689 , 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Nicholson Air Servs., Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs, 120 Md.App. 47, 83 , 706 A.2d 124 (1998). “The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right ‘secured by the Constitution and laws.’ ” Baker, 443 U.S. at 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2689 . Appellant, in her brief, predicates the § 1983 claim on violations of her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Appellant cites authority for the proposition that § 1983 provides a remedy for “discrimination in violation of [her] equal protection rights.” Appellant further asserts that “[t]he elements of an employment discrimination claim in violation of the equal protection clause are the same under section 1983 as Title VII.” We do not address the latter of appellant’s claims because we conclude she did not plead a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The perti ⁵²³ nent phrase in paragraph 62 asserts a violation of “rights to be free from discrimination based on gender, race or ethnicity, secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” For support, Count VII incorporates the entire remainder of the amended complaint. Despite such broad incorporation, we are unable to locate any references to the Fourteenth Amendment or its Equal Protection Clause in the amended complaint. Consequently, we conclude that the pleading does not assert a violation of appellant’s equal protection rights under the Constitution.

Additionally, if the amended complaint is read to assert § 1983 remedies based on direct violations of the federal statutory counts, those § 1983 remedies fail as a result of our decision to affirm the dismissal of the predicate federal law counts. B. Claims Based on the Maryland Declaration of Rights Although the amended complaint is silent