Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—D. Md.: Mechanic with alcohol dependency, diverticulitis failed to state claims against transit agency, (Oct 30, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

A supervisor allegedly said the mechanic had been put on a “blacklist” following his prior lawsuits and successful settlements with the authority.

A transit mechanic with alcohol dependency and diverticulitis, who successfully settled two prior lawsuits against the Maryland Transit Administration, failed to state claims that the authority again violated the Rehabilitation Act, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, and the FMLA in an alleged course of ongoing harassment, a federal district court in Maryland found. Sovereign immunity barred his Rehab Act claims. Further, considering only the post-settlement facts, he failed to allege clearly what adverse actions were taken against him in connection with his MFEPA and FMLA claims, how they are causally connected to his protected activities, what FMLA and MFEPA accommodations he sought or were denied, or how the agency interfered with his FMLA leave (Mattison v. Maryland Transit Administration, No. 24-cv-3338-ABA (D. Md. Oct. 29, 2025)).

Repairman/Mechanic Class A. The plaintiff, according to the court, began working for the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) on May 20, 2011. He remains employed there and is currently a Repairman/Mechanic Class A.

Prior settlements with MTA. He has filed and settled two previous employment-related lawsuits with the MTA. The first case was filed in 2015 and alleged violations of the FMLA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA). That case was settled in 2017. The second case, which asserted similar claims, was filed in 2020 and settled on February 15, 2022.

Alleged fabrication of reasons to fire him. Since the second settlement, he alleges, the MTA has been “attempting to fabricate reasons to terminate him,” though it has not yet terminated him.

Written up. He alleges that, on April 18, 2023, he “was written up and threatened with an occurrence because he did not respond to pages when he was in the bathroom” due to his alleged disability, and, on the same day, “was questioned and interrogated” by the assistant administrator “on how he had replaced a part on a bus needing repair with a part that purportedly was not in stock.” He alleges that he informed her “that the inventory records are not accurate and have not been since he had started at the MTA.” He further alleges that she “continued harassing [him] by continuing to interrogate [him] even [though] he had provided her with a truthful explanation.”

Questioning by assistant administrator. He alleges that later, on April 24, he “was called to [the assistant administrator’s] office because he did not immediately respond to being paged because he was having a flareup and was in the bathroom.” She allegedly then “kept questioning him as to his whereabouts even after [he] explained that he was in the bathroom in gastrointestinal distress,” “as if she did not believe him in an attempt to fabricate that he was lying as to his whereabouts in order to get him fired.”

Put in room. Then, on April 27, he allegedly “was put in a room with [the administrator], [the assistant administrator], [the shop steward], and [his own supervisor]” and “[the supervisor] sat in a chair blocking the door and preventing Plaintiff from leaving.” He alleges that he “was interrogated about not answering a page when he was having a diverticulitis flare-up and was using the bathroom,” and that “[d]espite explaining that he was in the bathroom, [the administrator] and [assistant administrator] persisted in interrogating [him] regarding his whereabouts.”

Part pickup dispute. In addition to other allegations, he alleges that the assistant administrator told him he was not allowed to pick up a part from a different division. When he “asked why he was the only repairman not allowed to pick up parts, [she] refused to give him a reason and in a hostile and condescending tone told him ‘because I said so.’”

Questioning regarding absences. He alleges that in April 2023, he “was called into the office” because “he had been absent on certain days” and that he “explained that he had been awarded FMLA” leave for that time. Allegedly, “Management... did not believe him and continued to question, interrogate, and harass him regarding the absences.”

Blacklisted? Then, in June 2023, a supervisor allegedly told him “that he had come to learn that Plaintiff had been put on an MTA ‘blacklist,’ and that MTA management was trying ‘to get rid of him’ because of and in response to his prior-filed grievances, EEOC charges, and lawsuits, and the successful settlements he had received.”

Drug tests. Later, he alleges, “MTA management... began attempting to set [him] up to arrive late to random drug testing appointments in order to get him fired” by “setting appointments and notifying [him] such that he would only have sometimes 20 to 25 minutes to make the appointment,” which was not sufficient time. This allegedly happened five times in August, October, and December 2023. Then, “[d]ue to the patent unfairness and violation of policy in setting shortened arrival times for drug testing and the concomitant anxiety and stress, [he] filed a grievance on August 29, 2024.”

Inappropriately touched? He also alleges that the assistant administrator “inappropriately touch[ed] him” on two occasions “in a manner that made him feel uncomfortable.”

Third lawsuit. After receiving his right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on June 19, 2024, he filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on September 16, 2024, alleging violations of the MFEPA, the ADA, the Rehab Act, and the FMLA.

On November 19, 2024, the MTA removed the case to federal district court, and he filed amended complaints on January 20, 2025, and February 5, 2025. In his second amended complaint, he alleges three counts: (1) claims under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile work environment, (2) claims under MFEPA for failure to accommodate, retaliation, and harassment/hostile work environment, and (3) claims under the FMLA for interference and retaliation. The MTA moved to dismiss, and he responded.

Sovereign immunity. The court found that sovereign immunity barred the Rehab Act claims. He originally brought the case in state court, where MTA retained immunity to the Rehab Act claims, and by removing the case to federal court—where it has waived immunity from such claims—the MTA did not gain any additional immunity. Pursuant to Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484, 490 (4th Cir. 2005), the federal district court thus reasoned that, because the MTA did not gain any additional immunity through its own removal of the action, the MTA retained its sovereign immunity.

The court thus dismissed the Rehab Act claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Insufficient pleading. The court found that it was unable to judge the sufficiency of the transit mechanic’s remaining claims because he failed to provide a “a short and plain statement of the claim[s] showing [he] is entitled to relief” by coupling relevant factual allegations with each of his claims that, if true, would entitle him to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Considering only the post-settlement facts, the court elaborated, his second amended complaint did not clearly allege, among other things, what adverse actions were taken against him in connection with his MFEPA and FMLA claims, how they were causally connected to his protected activities, what FMLA and MFEPA accommodations he sought or were denied, or how the MTA interfered with his FMLA leave.

The Rehab Act claims were thus dismissed with prejudice and the remainder of the claims dismissed without prejudice.

The case is No. 24-cv-3338-ABA.

Judge: Abelson, A.

Attorneys: Michael E. Glass (Law Offices of Michael Glass) for Charles E. Mattison, Jr. Leon Mathias Debes, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, for Maryland Transit Administration and Maryland Department of Transportation.

Companies: Maryland Transit Administration; Maryland Department of Transportation

Cases: PublicEmployees DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Procedure MarylandNews