By Adam Pagnucco.
Part One told the story of former planning director Gwen Wright’s termination last fall and contained details about her attorney, former Delegate Timothy F. Maloney. Now let’s review Wright’s court case against Park and Planning.
Wright filed suit against the agency on March 9. The suit’s case number is C-15-CV-23-000909. The suit is not an employment action but instead relates to a Maryland Public Information Act request. Wright did not obtain information responsive to her request and is now suing the agency to get it.
The passage below is an excerpt from Wright’s complaint. Bear in mind that a legal complaint is a set of allegations that form the premise of a lawsuit. They are not findings of fact by a judge or jury. That said, here is what Wright (through Maloney) had to say.
*****
Gwen Wright was employed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the “M-NCPPC”) where she served as Montgomery County’s director of planning for nine years. Ms. Wright was a nationally recognized planning director. She received awards and commendations for her exemplary work throughout her tenure. On October 7, 2022, without warning or notice, the M-NCPPC terminated Ms. Wright for exercising her First Amendment rights.
In September of 2022, the Planning Board’s vice chair, Partap Verma, made false allegations against the Planning Board Chair, Casey Anderson, accusing him of creating a “toxic misogynistic and hostile workplace.” Upon information and belief, Mr. Verma made this false allegation to advance his ambition to remove Mr. Anderson and become chair of the Planning Board himself. On multiple occasions, Mr. Verma improperly accosted Montgomery County Planning Department employees who worked under Ms. Wright’s supervision, and attempted to coerce them into supporting his false allegations. Some employees did not cooperate with Mr. Verma, knowing his allegations to be false. Some employees complained to Ms. Wright about Mr. Verma’s coercive and improper behavior.
Ms. Wright also knew these allegations to be false. She made her views known in a letter to the Montgomery County Council supporting Mr. Anderson on September 30, 2022 signed by fourteen staff members in the Planning Department. Ms. Wright remained concerned about Mr. Partap’s attempts to pressure her staff and misrepresent their views about Mr. Anderson. On Thursday, October 6, 2022, Ms. Wright told WJLA-TV in an unsolicited interview that some individuals may have had a problem with Mr. Anderson, but they were not her employees in the Planning Department.
The following day, Friday, October 7, 2022, the Planning Board terminated Ms. Wright’s employment without notice or warning. The Board vote was 4-0, with Mr. Anderson abstaining. The termination was made at the behest of Mr. Verma, the same individual who initiated the complaints against Mr. Anderson.
The termination was in direct retaliation against Ms. Wright for her public statements rebutting demonstrably false allegations by Mr. Verma and others that Chair Anderson had created “toxic misogynistic and hostile workplace” and for her public support of Planning Department employees who refused to support these false allegations by Mr. Verma. The Board’s decision to terminate Ms. Wright on October 7 resulted in a public outcry, and resignation of the entire Planning Board at the insistence of the Montgomery County Council. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wright sent the M-NCPPC a Local Government Tort Claims Act Notice in accordance with Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-301 et seq.
On October 19, 2022, Ms. Wright sent the M-NCPPC a request for records, pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act, G.P § 4-201 et seq., in an attempt to obtain information about her termination. Ex. 1, MPIA request dated Oct. 19, 2022. On October 2022, Ms. Wright sent the M-NCPPC a preservation letter demanding the preservation of documents that are “potentially relevant to wrongful termination of Ms. Wright,” including:
1) any investigation into the conduct of former Planning Board chair Casey Anderson; 2) any complaints concerning Mr. Anderson and/or investigation into such complaints; 3) any communications between members of the Planning Board or staff, and the planning staff, concerning Mr. Anderson; and, 4) any communications concerning Ms. Wright, including but not limited to communications concerning the planning staff letter to the County Council concerning Mr. Anderson and/or Ms. Wright’s statements to WJLA TV-7. These documents include emails and/or texts on any private phone, tablet or other messaging device of any former Planning Board member.
Ex. 6, Preservation letter dated Oct. 20, 2022 (emphasis in original).
Ms. Wright explicitly requested the preservation and production of text messages between the Board’s Commissioners relating to her termination. Id. The M-NCPPC failed to provide any text messages, claiming no responsive text message exists. This is not accurate as the Board’s Commissioners regularly conducted official business via text message. Plaintiff narrowed and renewed her request for text messages in a written letter dated January 20, 2023. Ex. 2, Letter to Borden dated Jan 20, 2023. Again, the M-NCPPC failed to produce any of the requested emails and text messages.
The M-NCPPC is intentionally obscuring the facts surrounding Ms. Wright’s termination by withholding relevant and discoverable text messages. Ms. Wright brings this action to compel M-NCPPC to comply with the provisions of the Public Information Act.
*****
Wright added further specific allegations against Verma later in the complaint.
*****
In September of 2022, the Planning Board’s vice chair, Partap Verma, made false allegations against the Planning Board Chair, Casey Anderson, accusing him of creating a “toxic misogynistic and hostile workplace.”
Upon information and belief, Mr. Verma made this false allegation to advance his ambition to remove Mr. Anderson and become chair of the Planning Board himself.
Mr. Verma attempted to personally lead the investigation into Mr. Anderson’s alleged conduct.
Mr. Verma began interrogating Board employees by questioning them one-on-one in their respective work areas. Some of this questioning occurred while senior staff were participating in a conference elsewhere in the building.
The employees reported Mr. Verma’s actions to Plaintiff, stating that Mr. Verma was intimidating them, making them feel uncomfortable, and attempting to coerce them into saying things about Anderson that were not true, especially concerning the alleged toxic environment.
*****
Wright then alleged that Verma “initiated the termination in retaliation for Ms. Wright’s public statements in support of Mr. Anderson and for her statements on behalf of the employees in the Planning Department stating that they did not agree with these allegations.”
Wright’s complaint asks the court to order Park and Planning to produce the records she seeks and award her damages and litigation costs.
We will conclude in Part Three.