OCEAN CITY — The Town of Ocean City this week filed a motion to dismiss a $5 million lawsuit filed against the city alleging a hostile workplace and retaliation, asserting the complaint is unfounded and steps were taken to correct the alleged violations.
In September, former Ocean City Police Department (OCPD) records technician Sandra D’Alessandro filed a civil suit against the town alleging she was forced to resign from her position in April 2015 in retaliation for complaining about her alleged hostile workplace at the department. In the complaint, D’Alessandro, a Caucasian female, alleges the workplace hostility began in 2014 when she was continually harassed by a white male co-worker for her interactions with two African-American co-workers.
The plaintiff alleges the harassment by her male co-worker included racially inappropriate comments and threatening action over the period of several months. When the plaintiff complained, her immediate supervisor allegedly dismissed the claims initially under a kind of “boys will be boys” mentality, according to the suit.
When the harassment continued, the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor suggested she take her complaints higher up the chain to top OCPD officers. However, the suit alleges top OCPD officers dismissed the complaints. D’Alessandro asserts in the complaint she was told by her supervisor because she was a part-time employee, her complaints should more appropriately be filed with the town’s Human Resources department.
After an extensive complaint was filed with Human Resources, the lawsuit alleges a full-time position for which the plaintiff had been conditionally hired was defunded by the Mayor and Council that same day, an action the lawsuit alleges was not a coincidence.
After the alleged workplace harassment lingered and even escalated as the plaintiff continued her part-time position, D’Alessandro was ultimately placed on indefinite suspension with no end date for allegedly being insubordinate, using profanity and leaving work early, among other things, according to the complaint.
With no end date for her suspension, D’Alessandro ultimately resigned under the threat of termination in April 2015. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) outlining the alleged pattern of hostile workplace harassment and retaliation. In June, the EEOC issued to D’Alessandro two right-to-sue letters after reviewing the allegations. In September, armed with the EEOC letters, D’Alessandro filed a $5 million lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the town.
The five-count suit alleges a hostile workplace based on race, retaliation, tortious interference with business relations because the town allegedly interfered with her attempts to gain other employment, and defamation. On Tuesday, the town, through its attorneys, filed a formal answer to the complaint, seeking its dismissal on several grounds.
“The plaintiff never requested a reasonable accommodation,” the answer reads. “The plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because all decisions and any conduct with respect to her employment were made by the plaintiff’s supervisor for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory, non-pretextual reasons and there is no basis for any claim against the defendant by the plaintiff.”
The formal answer filed on Tuesday systematically denies practically every paragraph in the 37-page complaint and seeks its immediate dismissal on several grounds.
“The plaintiff is not entitled to the damages or relief requested, nor is he entitled to wages, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damage costs, prejudgment interest, attorney fees or any other relief,” the answer reads. “The defendant took reasonable steps to stop any harassing conduct and the plaintiff cannot show requisite evidence to prove hostile work environment, retaliation or constructive discharge. Having fully answered the complaint against it, the defendant respects that the complaint be dismissed.”
According to the complaint, even after the town defunded the full-time position in the OCPD records department, a position D’Alessandro had been conditionally offered before she began complaining about her hostile workplace environment, she was still being considered for the position should it be reinstated along with another co-worker.
However, when it came time for further interviews for the position, D’Alessandro was required to submit to a polygraph examination and required to submit extensive medical records while the other candidate for the position was not, the suit alleges. When D’Alessandro went to take the polygraph with a Maryland State Police (MSP) sergeant, she told the officer about the formal complaints she had filed. According to the complaint, the MSP officer excused himself for a short time and then returned and told D’Alessandro that the position was no longer available and the polygraph test would not be needed, according to the complaint.
