Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

(2) November 8, 2021 – Plaintiff asserts that, during her meeting with , he “stated her accommodations were being violated by ‘repeatedly giving her work with deadline demands,’” but told her that the accommodations were “‘guiding principles’to be followed only ‘tothe extent possible,’” and that she “needed to be ‘more flexible’ratherthan insisting on adherence to approved This “quote” and “citation” were one of a number of issues previously raised to Plaintiff’s counsel in this Court’s March 12, 2026 Letter Order. ECF 75. In light of the fabricated citation, this Court has sufficient cause, in its discretion, to decline to consider the proposition purportedly drawn from “Nita H. ,” for which Plaintiff cites no other case in either its cross-motion or its reply. However, the point is moot because, as discussed infra, even if this Court were to accept Plaintiff’s argument based on the fabricated citation, Plaintiff still has not adequately shown causation. Under the “intervening period” theory of causation, where “temporal proximity between protected activity and allegedly retaliatory conduct is missing, courts may look to the intervening period for other evidence of retaliatory animus.