Opinion
Civil No. -JFM-11 -2260
04-04-2012
PAMELA CAROL NEWLIN v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
MEMORANDUM
Defendant has filed a partial motion to dismiss. The motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The claim made in count V for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not legally cognizable because Maryland law does not permit an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, asserted in count IV, also fails because she has not made sufficient allegations to establish that defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous or that she has suffered severe emotional distress as required under Maryland law. See, e.g.,Botson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684, 734 (1992); Beye v. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, 59 Md. App. 642 (1984); Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 66 Md. App. 46: 60-61 (1986); Waldrop v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., No. 10-cv-0328, at *14 (D. Md. July 13, 2010).
I have grave doubt as to whether plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish discrimination or retaliation for having asserted rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment act. However, given plaintiff's pro se status. I will excuse her error and consider the claims as having been asserted under the ADA rather than Title VII. It seems counterintuitive to assert a claim for constructive discharge (as plaintiff has done) when plaintiff remained on the job for many weeks after she allegedly was discriminated against. Given plaintiff's pro se status, however, I will deny defendant's motion as to counts 1 and II, in which these claims are asserted, without prejudice to defendant renewing its arguments about these claims by way of a motion for summary judgment at a later stage of this litigation.
As plaintiff acknowledges, she cited the wrong statutory provisions in making those claims.
A separate order effecting the rulings made in this memorandum is being entered herewith.
_________________
J Frederick Motz
United States District Judge