BALTIMORE (LN) — U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Maddox on Tuesday granted former Amtrak employee Gaynell Wilson’s motion to amend her complaint against the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) to include a duty of fair representation claim, while dismissing her Title VII race and sex discrimination counts as legally insufficient.
Maddox ruled that Wilson’s proposed amendment was not clearly insufficient to warrant denial of leave to amend, noting that it was unclear of the pleading when her duty of fair representation claim accrued or whether it was time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations.
Wilson, who was terminated by Amtrak in 2021, alleged that union representative Mark Kenney failed to enforce her contractual rights after a Special Board of Adjustment issued a decision upholding her termination.
Wilson claimed Kenney “failed to enforce Plaintiff’s contractual rights” and “failed to remove outdated disciplinary records from Plaintiff’s employment file,” which she argued allowed for disciplinary charges that were prejudiced against her.
Kenney made remarks, including “They don't want me there,” which Wilson claims was discriminatory. According to Wilson, “they” refers to her white male supervisor, Dave Herring, and his peers, and Kenney offered the statement as an excuse for his lack of assistance.
Maddox wrote that the allegations that the union acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by failing to challenge the arbitration decision were not “clearly insufficient” to support a duty of fair representation claim.
The judge noted that while the court had previously dismissed the union claim as time-barred, the proposed amendment did not clearly establish when Wilson knew or should have known of the violation, making it premature to rule on the statute of limitations defense.
However, Maddox dismissed Wilson’s Title VII claims for race and sex discrimination, ruling that she failed to allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that the union took action against her based on her protected characteristics.
Wilson alleged she was treated differently from two male colleagues, Rodney Johnson and Ramon Jackson, who were either reinstated or never formally terminated for their involvement incident.
The judge found these allegations insufficient because Wilson did not allege that the union had any role in the decisions regarding Johnson and Jackson, nor did she allege that the union discriminated against her based on how Amtrak treated her male coworkers.
Maddox also dismissed Wilson’s Title VII retaliation claim, noting that her filing of an EEOC charge did not constitute protected activity that caused the union’s prior adverse actions, and that taking a lunch break did not constitute opposing workplace discrimination.
The court also granted the union’s motion to strike a declaration Wilson filed in support of her amendment, ruling that the declaration was untimely and contained immaterial surplusage that did not rescue her Title VII claims.
Wilson’s declaration included allegations of harassment by a supervisor and a lewd remark by a male union representative, but the judge found the comment standing alone was clearly insufficient to support a plausible sex-based harassment claim.
Maddox ordered the union to file a response to the amended complaint no later than May 28, 2026.