United States District Court, D. Delaware
Anthony Brown, Wilmington, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
J. Cleary, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of
Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Brenda
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Devon Anthony Brown, who appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed
this action on July 22, 2016, followed by an amendment on
August 8, 2016. (D.I. 2, 5). Plaintiff and Defendant Brenda
Sands have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (D.I.
23, 26). Briefing on the motions is complete.
raises a due process claim against Sands for refusing to
accept his charge of discrimination against his
employer. Plaintiff claims he was denied the right
to use the Office of Industrial Affairs, DDOL for its
intended purpose. He also raises a supplemental state law
claim for battery against an unidentified Delaware Department
of Labor ("DDOL") security officer. Plaintiff alleges
he was harmed because the DDOL and its employees "dared
[him] to react" after inappropriate touching and
sexually suggestive behavior by the security officer.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief in
the form of the charges against his employer moving forward
and filed through the DDOL and by forbidding the DDOL from
disclosing information. (D.I. 3).
the relevant timeframe, Defendant was an investigator for the
DDOL's Office of Anti-Discrimination ("OAD").
(D.I. 27 at Ex. D, Sands aff.). Defendant had several
interactions with Plaintiff when he visited Defendant's
office to report an alleged incident of employment
discrimination after he was discharged on the basis of his
criminal record. (Id. at Exs. C, D). On May 11,
2016, Plaintiff completed a DDOL AOD intake questionnaire.
(Id. at Ex. C). Defendant reviewed Plaintiff's
draft charge of discrimination and indicated there was a
grammatical error. (Id. at Ex. D). Plaintiff
appeared upset when informed of the error and was told this
was an opportunity to correct any errors and make deletions
or additions to his charge. (Id.). Plaintiff noted
that retaliation was not on the draft charge and began
yelling that his submissions clearly pointed to retaliation.
(Id.). Plaintiff declined to file a charge of
contacted her supervisor, Daniel McGannon, after the
interaction and sent a note to Defendant scheduling a second
meeting for June 20, 2016. (Id.). Plaintiff was
presented with a letter for his signature that confirmed and
agreed his intake appointment was set for June 20, 2016, and
that a security team member would be present for the intake
appointment. (Id. at Ex. E). The letter also
provided as follows:
You hereby acknowledge and agree that the purpose of the
intake appointment is for you to assist the Department in
drafting your charge of discrimination based on your factual
allegations. You hereby acknowledge and agree that the
Department will not issue a charge of discrimination to your
former employer until you have approved, signed, and
notarized the charge of discrimination.
was present at Plaintiffs June 20, 2016 client interview in
case he repeated his threatening conduct, although Defendant
stated security's presence was not standard operating
procedure. (Id.). Plaintiff immediately stated that
he did not want to meet with Defendant. (Id.).
Defendant explained her purpose was solely to act as an
intake officer to assist with charge filing and she offered
to review reworking of Plaintiff's charge or allow him to
submit his own attachment since he was dissatisfied with the
department's working on his charge. (Id.).
Plaintiff made several comments to the security officer that
he was dissatisfied with Defendant's handling of the
charge filing appointment and that he had previously reported
this to management. (Id.). Retaliation was added to
the charge as requested by Plaintiff. (Id.).
to Defendant, she ended the appointment because
Plaintiff's manner escalated to the point of making
derogatory complaints directed at Defendant including
demeaning black women, the elderly, and dissatisfaction with
her explanation of the charge filing process in general.
(Id.). Defendant asked Plaintiff to discontinue his
derogatory statements during the charge filing appointment so
that his charge could be finalized. (Id.). Plaintiff
responded by stating he had made several complaints to
management, the governor and others about the OAD process.
(Id.). The meeting ended with Plaintiff stating,
"you can go to hell." (Id.). Plaintiffs
charge of discrimination was completed, but not finalized
with his signature. (Id.).
to Defendant, because of Plaintiffs repeated hostile and
abusive behavior, McGannon made a recommendation to the
Secretary of Labor to ban Plaintiff from the OAD building.
(Id.). McGannon sent a letter to Plaintiff, dated
June 22, 2016, that advised Plaintiff he was no longer
permitted on the DDOL's premises as a result of his prior
conduct. (Id.). The letter directed Plaintiff to
seek additional assistance for processing his charge of
discrimination with the offices of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in Philadelphia, and the letter
provided Plaintiff EEOC contact information including the
EEOC's address, telephone number, and website.
(Id.). According to Defendant, this is a viable
alternative arrangement because the EEOC and the OAD have a
work-sharing agreement that permits transfers of claims.
(Id. at Ex. D; see also Id. at Ex. B (2015
worksharing agreement between Delaware Department of Labor
and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)).
served requests for admissions upon Plaintiff on October 25,
2017. (D.I. 22). Plaintiff did not respond or object to the
requests and they are deemed admitted. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
36(a)(3). Plaintiff admits that McGannon and Defendant
offered to assist him in finalizing a charge of
discrimination against his former employer. (D.I. 22, Request
No. 6). Plaintiff admits that he refused to sign an agreement
that he "acknowledge[d] and agree[d]" that the DDOL
would not issue a charge of discrimination to his former
employer until he "approved, signed, and notarized the
charge of discrimination." (Id. at Request No.
7). Plaintiff admits that he verbally and physically
threatened Defendant and that his ongoing threatening conduct
merited a response by the security officer against whom
Plaintiff filed a claim. (Id. at Request Nos. 9,
11). Plaintiff admits that he has no colorable claims of a
violation of ...