Case: Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police
1:23-cv-00442 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed Date: Feb. 17, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is about a Black employee of the Maryland Department of State Police (MDSP) who alleged that MDSP discriminated against him on the basis of race.
Background
This case arose against the backdrop of sustained scrutiny of the Maryland Department of State Police (MDSP) for alleged racial discrimination in its employment practices. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a Title VII pattern-or-practice investigation into MDSP’s hiring and promotion procedures, ultimately concluding that its use of written and physical fitness tests disproportionately disqualified Black and female applicants without business justification. The investigation culminated in a 2024 consent decree requiring structural reforms, back pay, and priority hiring for affected candidates.
That same year, several Black troopers filed a separate class action—Tribue v. Maryland Department of State Police, 8:22-cv-02732 (D. Md.)—alleging systemic discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. That suit detailed alleged racially offensive incidents within the agency and claimed that officers who reported discrimination were punished through reassignment, discipline, or denial of career advancement.
Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police
This lawsuit was brought by a Black man who worked as a Deputy Chief Fire Marshal for the MDSM Office of the State Fire Marshal (OFSM). OSFM is an agency of the MDSP; it is responsible for statewide fire, arson, and explosive investigations.
On February 17, 2023, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against OFSM. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge A. David Copperthite. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff asserted six counts against OFSM:
- Counts I, II, and III alleged that OFSM violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against the plaintiff on the basis of race and color and by retaliating against the plaintiff because he reported concerns about a racially hostile work environment.
- Count IV alleged that OFSM violated the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) by allowing racial harassment of the plaintiff.
- Count IV alleged that OFSM violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by transferring the plaintiff and reducing the plaintiff’s job responsibilities for his failure to work while on a medical leave.
- Count VI was a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that OFSM violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by punishing the plaintiff for speaking out about a racially hostile environment, depriving the plaintiff of due process when administratively suspending him, and taking adverse action against the plaintiff due to his race.
The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiff alleged that he was involuntarily transferred, faced an unfounded internal investigation, and was suspended from employment purportedly due to a backlog in submitting origin and cause reports. According to the plaintiff, he was singled out for discipline despite the backlog being a department-wide issue. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the Fire Marshal made racially insensitive remarks during a conversation in February 2020. After then taking an (unrelated) medical leave of absence, the plaintiff alleged that he returned to work in March 2021, only to face intensified scrutiny and criticism from his supervisor—such as denying the plaintiff’s requests for additional resources and overtime to address his backlog. The plaintiff informed two OFSM Commanders of these events later that month. But, the plaintiff alleged, he still faced escalating retaliatory actions. On June 16, 2021, he was suddenly transferred to headquarters, stripped of his command responsibilities, and later subjected to personnel counseling. On October 12, 2021, he was suspended without notice, purportedly related to his work backlog. After an internal OFSM investigation, the plaintiff was reinstated in March 2022 under allegedly contentious conditions and unrealistic deadlines.
On May 1, 2023, OFSM moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. OFSM argued that several of the plaintiff’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. On August 8, 2023, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Judge Copperthite dismissed Count IV (FEPA), Count V (FMLA), and Count VI (§ 1983/§ 1981 claims) on sovereign immunity grounds, holding that the State of Maryland had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for these claims. However, the court allowed Counts I–III (Title VII) to proceed. 2023 WL 5053545.
The case proceeded to discovery. On May 8, 2024, OFSM moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. It argued that the plaintiff failed to identify any similarly situated white troopers who were treated more favorably, and that the decisions regarding his transfer, suspension, and non-promotion were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including performance concerns and internal staffing needs.
On July 16, 2024, the court granted OFSM’s motion for summary judgment in full. Specifically, the court dismissed Count I (Title VII - race discrimination) and Count II (Title VII - color discrimination) because the plaintiff had not alleged “direct evidence” of discrimination and failed to show that comparators—similarly situated employees outside his protected class—were treated more favorably. Meanwhile, the court dismissed Count III (Title VII - retaliation) because the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his alleged protected activity (raising concerns about racially insensitive conduct) and the adverse actions that followed. 2024 WL 3427054.
The plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of his Title VII claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As of May 4, 2025, the appeal remains pending.
Summary Authors
Gordon Pignato (5/4/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66826395/parties/chapman-v-maryland-department-of-state-police/
Copperthite, A. David (Maryland)
Ashe, Kyle Andrew
Bowen, Mark Holdsworth (Maryland)
General, Anthony G.
Jaskulski-Tripp, Jennifer Ann (Maryland)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66826395/chapman-v-maryland-department-of-state-police/
Last updated July 9, 2026, 5:33 a.m.
Docket for: Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 17, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Black male employed by the Maryland Department of State Police.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Maryland Department of State Police
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 1:23-cv-00442
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 24-01766
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Case Summary of Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44328/ (last updated 5/4/2025).