U.S. v Carson (Maryland U.S.D.C.)(Not Approved for Publication)

Order Signed April 5, 2007--Magistrate Judge James K. Bredar. (Not approved for publication.)

On February 20, 2007, the Court entered an Order detaining the Defendant pending disposition of the criminal charges against him, pursuant to 18 USC §3141 et seq. (The Bail Reform Act). In light of the Defendants manifest health issues (the Defendant was a transgendered individual, infected with HIV), the Court entered another Order directing the United States Marshals Service and its contractors to evaluate specified medical problems reported by the Defendant and his lawyer and then to provide care and treatment consistent with the standard of care for the conditions revealed by the ordered examination.

Two weeks after the Defendant was remanded to the custody of the Marshal the Court was advised that the Defendant was not receiving necessary medication, and it became apparent that the Court's prior medical Order was being ignored. The Defendant requested that he be ordered released and, when the Government raised no objection to this proposed remedy for the failure to care for the Defendant, the Court granted the request. Frustrated by the noncompliance with the Medical Order, the Court went on to order the Marshals Service and its contractors to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their apparent violation of the Order. A hearing was held on March 13, 2007.

That hearing revealed defects in process in addition to omissions by individuals. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court took the matter of contempt findings under advisement and directed that the Marshals Service and their contractors conduct a further investigation and then file with the Court a plan of action designed to insure that federal detainees will receive appropriate medical care in the future and, most importantly, will insure that there is good compliance with the Court's medical orders in the future.

The United States Marshals Service and the Maryland State Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services submitted their "Proposed Plan of Action" on March 27, 2007. The Court concluded that it now appears that there is a definite and precise procedure for insuring that federal detainees are presented to medical staff and that any relevant orders of this Court are transmitted to medical staff. The Court concluded that the imposition of any sanctions would not be productive and that further pursuit of contempt issues would not be useful at this time. However, the Court warned that:

The Marshals Service, the U.S. Attorney and the State are collectively charged with the responsibility to be vigilant and to insure that conditions do not again deteriorate to the deplorable state revealed at the hearing and by the subsequent investigation.

The Memorandum and Order are available in PDF.

Tarquini v. Superior Products, Inc. (U.S.D.C.)(Not Approved for Publication)

Filed March 12, 2007 – Memorandum Opinion by Judge James K. Bredar

Plaintiff Tarquini, a former sales representative for Defendant Superior Products, brought this suit for wrongful discharge and violation of federal, Maryland and Virginia equal pay acts, violation of the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Act, breach of contract, and violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In response to Superior’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found that Tarquini’s claims based on Title VII and the Equal Pay Act alleging gender-based wage discrimination were not time-barred to the extent that a jury could find the violations willful (which extends the limitations period to three years). Tarquini’s sexually hostile environment claim also was not time-barred because, under the “continuing violation” doctrine, a letter terminating Ms. Tarquini within the statutory time period could serve as an act contributing to the alleged hostile environment, thereby allowing acts outside the limitation period to be brought in to support the claim.

The Court also denied summary judgment for Superior as to Tarquini’s retaliatory discharge claim. Although the Judge considered it undisputed that Tarquini was an at-will employee, other terms of her employment could permit Tarquini's claims based on breach of contract and violation of the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Act, so summary judgment on those issues also was dened.

The Court granted summary judgment as to Tarquini’s ADA claims after finding that she had not sufficiently demonstrated that she had a disability under the ADA. Finally, the Court granted summary judgment as to abusive discharge, since it is a judicial exception to create a remedy where none exists by statute and, in this case, Tarquini had statutory remedies available.

The full opinion is available in PDF as is the Order.