Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Md.: No evidence animus drove decision to fire Motor Vehicle Administration employee, (Sep 28, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Among other things, she alleged that her coworkers referred to her as a “snitch” after she deescalated a situation wherein a man appeared at her desk with a gun.

Granting summary judgment against the retaliation claims asserted by a former employee of the Maryland Department of Transportation’s Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), a federal district court determined that the employee had failed to adduce evidence that the reason given for her termination—performance issues—was pretextual. Although the employee had presented positive evidence of her character from members of her community, the court noted that the positive opinion of community members who were not part of her workplace was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to her actions within the workplace, which is what the MVA relied on in reaching its termination decision (Reeves v. Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, No. 23-2017-BAH (D. Md. Sept. 24, 2026)).

The employee began working as a customer agent on a probationary status for the MVA on November 16, 2022. The probationary period was set to expire in April 2023 but was extended to November to allow for additional training. The employee was fired on May 26, 2023.

Gun incident. Sometime in December 2022, a visibly upset African-American man approached the employee, who herself is African-American, and cried as he told her one of her coworkers had belittled him and used racial slurs. He then opened his coat, revealing a gun, and stated that he intended to make sure the coworker never spoke to anyone like that again. The employee deescalated the situation and the man left.

Afterward, the employee reported the incident to her supervisor. Following this report, the employee alleged that she was labeled the “in-house whistle blower, the in-house snitch, and the in-house tattle tale.” She then reported suffering retaliation in the form of understaffing, exacerbating pre-existing injuries to her knee and ankle that made long periods of standing or walking difficult. A formal complaint was made to her supervisor as well as the MDOT MVA Office of Civil Rights and Fair Practices (MVA OCRFP).

Inadequate training. In addition to reporting the above incidents, the employee also visited the MDOT MVA headquarters on March 1, 2023, to share her concerns about inadequate training. She was concerned about the high rate of turnover among trainers, which she attributed to retaliatory animus. The MVA averred that the turnover was due to the employee’s demeanor, which resulted in personal conflicts.

On March 17, 2023, the employee again wrote a letter to MVA OCRFP documenting her concerns over the alleged bullying and insufficient training. Three days later, the MVA OCRFP held a meeting to discuss these concerns. Three days after that, the employee submitted another complaint of workplace bullying. In response, the MVA OCRFP referenced the meeting it had held and stated it had taken appropriate action concerning the employee’s complaints.

Written counseling. On April 20, 2023, the employee mistakenly allowed a customer who was not qualified for a license to enter the driving test room. This resulted in the employee being issued a written counseling letter.

Coworker’s complaint. Around this same time, a coworker invited the employee to an adult entertainment establishment and asked for her number. She declined, stating the invitation made her uncomfortable and that she did not trust coworkers with her personal phone number. The coworker complained, leading to an investigatory interview with the employee based on allegations she had made the coworker feel uncomfortable by stating that she could not trust him. No further disciplinary action was taken against the employee, but she contended that these events amounted to harassment, abuse, and retaliation.

Termination. On May 26, 2023, the employee was terminated and barred from employment with the MDOT and the MVA for the next five years. Subsequently, she filed this lawsuit alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII.

Protected activity. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, the court first considered whether the employee had engaged in protected activity. The MVA conceded that the employee had done so with regard to her reports to the MVA OFCRP and to her later complaints to the EEOC. However, it contended that her report to her supervisor concerning the gunman was not a protected activity under Title VII. The court agreed.

Because the employee’s report of the gunman incident was focused on the danger of the gunman, a non-employee member of the public, presented to the MVA, as well as a summary of the “derogatory, racial comments” an MVA employee allegedly made to the gunman, this initial report was not protected activity under Title VII. Rather, her protected activities were her reports of allegedly retaliatory acts taken against her following that report, which is where the court focused its analysis.

Adverse action. It was undisputed that the employee’s termination and subsequent five-year ban on employment with the MVA constituted an adverse action. However, the MVA argued the employee could not point to any other adverse actions. The employee contended that she suffered a “slew” of adverse actions in the form of various write-ups and reprimands. Because the MVA conceded the employee suffered some adverse action, the court turned to whether the employee could show pretext.

Causation. On the issue of causation, the court found the temporal proximity between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment actions was sufficient to satisfy the causation element of the employee’s prima facie case. In this instance, the employee engaged in protected activity by filing an EEOC charge on March 24, 2023. She was then fired less than two months later, which is within the timeframe recognized by the Fourth Circuit as just short enough to establish her prima facie case.

Non-retaliatory reason. Shifting the burden to the MVA to rebut the presumption that it had retaliated against the employee, it pointed to a document that was presented to the employee stating that she was being terminated for “serious breach of discipline (acts of unprofessional behavior) and [p]rocessing [e]rrors.”

According to the employee, this determination lacked specificity was therefore insufficient to meet the MVA’s burden on this point. The court agreed that the one sentence statement of reasoning on the form was likely inadequate to establish a non-retaliatory reason for the MVA’s actions. However, the MVA presented additional evidence to bolster its initial statement, including testimony from the employee’s supervisor that the employee engaged in excessive solicitation of customer feedback forms, referred to trainers and supervisors as “the devil,” and her propensity to challenge basic tasks they were trying to teach her. This additional testimony was enough to satisfy the MVA’s burden at this step.

Positive character. In an effort to show that the MVA’s reasons for terminating her were pretextual, the employee contended that there was too much positive evidence of her character and job performance for its stated concerns to be the reason behind its decision. The employee proffered numerous character letters from various people in her community, including a day care director, a pastor, and a medical professional. However, the court explained that the positive opinion of community members who were not part of the employee’s workplace was insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to her actions within the workplace.

As to the copies of positive customer reviews submitted by the employee, the court noted that the satisfaction of individual customers can coexist with the other issues outlined by the MVA’s evidence, such as belligerence with supervisors and difficulty with training. In fact, continued the court, the volume of the included customer reviews—approximately 92 pages—served to corroborate the MVA’s concern that the employee was soliciting feedback at an inappropriate rate and slowing down service. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of the MVA.

The case is No. 23-2017-BAH.

Judge: Hurson, B.

Attorneys: Linda M. Correia (Correia & Puth) for Stella Marion Reeves. Leight D. Collins, Motor Vehicle Administration, for Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration.

Cases: Retaliation Discharge PublicEmployees MarylandNews