Wanda Johnson v. Baltimore City, Maryland: Baltimore Police Dept.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 25-1124
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 1 of 37

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1124

WANDA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND; BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-02215-RDB)

Argued: October 23, 2025 Decided: January 6, 2026

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion in which Judge King joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a dissenting opinion.

ARGUED: Dionna Maria Lewis, DISTRICT LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Christine Ellen White, CITY OF BALTIMORE LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Stephen L. Fowler, DISTRICT LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ebony M. Thompson, Baltimore City Solicitor, Michael Redmond, Director, Appellate Practice Group, Kara K. Lynch, Chief Solicitor, Natalie R. Amato, Chief Counsel for Consent Decree, CITY OF BALTIMORE LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 2 of 37

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

Wanda Johnson (“Appellant”) alleges that her former employer, the Baltimore

Police Department (“Appellee”), discriminated against her on the basis of race and later

retaliated against her, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Appellant

further raises a Monell 1 claim alleging Appellee violated her civil rights. 2 The district court

granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant failed to allege plausible

claims for which relief can be granted.

Because Appellant has alleged that multiple white or non-black comparators

engaged in similar conduct to her own but received disparate treatment, we conclude

Appellant has sufficiently alleged a racial discrimination claim. However, because the

chain of events leading to Appellant’s termination began long before Appellant engaged in

any protected activity, we conclude Appellant’s retaliation claim was properly dismissed.

As to Appellant’s Monell claim, we conclude the complaint lacks specific factual

allegations of a widespread pattern or practice.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

1 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 2 A Monell claim refers to an action filed against a municipality for violating an individual’s constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Monell, a plaintiff may “hold a municipality liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983, [by establishing] that the execution of a policy or custom of the municipality caused the violation.” Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg, 139 F.4th 378, 384 (4th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 3 of 37

I.

This case began on August 26, 2018, when Appellant, an African American police

officer employed by Appellee, was at a nightclub celebrating her bachelorette party. An

altercation occurred outside of the nightclub between a member of Appellant’s party and

an on duty Baltimore police officer, Sergeant Marlon Koushall, during which Koushall

struck Appellant’s friend, a woman, in the face. A security guard present at the scene

testified that Koushall “pulled back his fist all the way and then hit [Appellant’s friend].”

Koushall v. State, 246 A.3d 764, 768 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021).

Following the incident, Appellee’s Internal Affairs Division (“Internal Affairs”)

interviewed all parties present, including Appellant. When the Office of the State’s

Attorney for Baltimore City (“State’s Attorney”) received the case and reviewed the

evidence, it “decided to . . . pursue charges against Mr. Koushall.” Koushall, 246 A.3d at

768. And, as detailed below, Koushall was ultimately indicted and convicted for this

conduct.

A grand jury was convened and, in January 2019, Appellant testified before the

grand jury against Koushall regarding the nightclub incident. According to Appellant’s

Complaint, following her grand jury testimony, Appellant was told by Lieutenant Mark

Walrath that “she was being ‘blackballed’ by [Appellee] and that ‘Internal Affairs is up

your a**.’” J.A. 48. 3 In February 2019, Koushall was indicted for second degree assault

and misconduct in office.

3 Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 4 of 37

In June of the same year, Internal Affairs notified Appellant that she was being

investigated in relation to the incident. Internal Affairs turned their investigation of

Appellant over to the State’s Attorney for assessment of criminal charges. The State’s

Attorney declined to bring any charges against Appellant or any other member of

Appellant’s party.

The State’s Attorney proceeded to trial against Koushall. During the bench trial,

which took place in September and October 2019, Appellant testified against Koushall for

the prosecution. Following her testimony, Assistant State’s Attorney Steve Trostle told

Appellant, “I feel bad for you; just be prepared that the shit storm is coming because

[Internal Affairs] is coming for you.” J.A. 48–49. Koushall was found guilty of second

degree assault and misconduct in office. As a result of his conviction, Koushall was

suspended and placed on supervised probation pending the appeal of his conviction. But,

of note, Appellee never pursued Koushall’s removal from employment. His conviction

was twice affirmed on appeal; first, by the Appellate Court of Maryland and then by the

Maryland Supreme Court. 4 See Koushall v. State, 246 A.3d 764 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.

2021); Koushall v. State, 277 A.3d 403 (Md. 2022). Yet, Koushall continues to remain

employed by Appellee. Oral Argument at 2:37:12–2:37:29, Wanda Johnson v. Baltimore

City, Maryland: Baltimore Police Dep’t, No. 25-1124 (4th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025),

4 At the time, the Appellate Court of Maryland was named the “Maryland Court of Special Appeals.” At the November 8, 2022, general election, Maryland changed the name to the “Appellate Court of Maryland.” The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. During the same election, the “Court of Appeals of Maryland” was renamed to the “Maryland Supreme Court.”

4 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 5 of 37

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments. (“It’s my

understanding that Sergeant Koushall does still work for [Appellee].”).

On June 4, 2020, Internal Affairs interviewed Appellant as part of the investigation

against her. And on June 11, 2020, Internal Affairs filed disciplinary charges against

Appellant for “committing an assault on August 26, 2018, failing to notify her supervisors

of the assault on August 26, 2018, making false statements in her interview on August 26,

2018, and making false statements in her interview on June 4, 2020.” J.A. 83–84.

Following these charges, Appellant was suspended with pay.

Thereafter, on February 16, 2021, Appellant filed a claim with the United States

Equal Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC Complaint”), alleging she was subjected to

“unequal terms and conditions of employment when [she] was informed that [Appellee]

was seeking to keep [her] on suspension while seeking termination for allegedly making

false statements during the investigation.” J.A. 6. In contrast, Appellant alleged, multiple

white Baltimore Police Department officers who had made false statements during

investigations were suspended but not terminated. As a result, Appellant averred that she

was “discriminated against . . . based on [her] race (Black) and in retaliation for engaging

in a protected activity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.”

J.A. 7.

5 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 6 of 37

Despite the EEOC Complaint, the disciplinary charges against Appellant proceeded

to an administrative trial board hearing on May 24–25, 2022. 5 Appellant alleges she

learned during these proceedings that a fellow Baltimore Police Department officer,

Officer Yolanda Nelson, filed a false report about the nightclub incident wherein Officer

Nelson claimed that two witnesses identified Appellant as the attacker. Appellant alleges

that the falsity of the report became apparent during the administrative trial board hearing

because Officer Nelson’s statements were contradicted by her own body camera footage.

Detective Bruce Gertz, the investigator assigned to the internal investigation against

Appellant, testified that he had reviewed Officer Nelson’s body-worn camera footage and

written report and observed discrepancies between the two. Yet, according to Appellant,

Detective Gertz “neither questioned nor charged Officer Nelson for submitting a false

report and giving a false statement.” J.A. 56.

On May 31, 2022, Appellant filed an internal complaint with the Police Integrity

Bureau against Officer Nelson and Detective Gertz alleging unfair and disparate treatment.

Appellant was forced by Appellee to submit her resignation in lieu of termination the next

day, June 1, 2022.

The following year, “[b]ecause over 180 days had elapsed since the EEOC assumed

jurisdiction over [Appellant’s] complaint, on August 22, 2022, [Appellant] requested the

5 Although our dissenting colleague chastises the majority for “never directly acknowledg[ing] that the trial board found [Appellant] guilty,” Post at 33, curiously neither does Appellee. Nowhere in the briefing or during oral argument did Appellee refer to Appellant as “guilty” of anything. Nonetheless, we, of course, acknowledge that the charges in Appellant’s administrative board hearing were sustained.

6 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 7 of 37

issuance of a Right-to-Sue Letter.” J.A. 44. And, “[i]n response, the [EEOC] issued

[Appellant] a Notice of Right to Sue, which [Appellant] received on May 15, 2023.” J.A.

44. Then, on August 14, 2023, Appellant filed her original complaint in the district court,

which brought five counts against Appellee. However, the district court concluded that

Appellant’s complaint failed to state any plausible claim, and it dismissed the complaint

without prejudice.

Appellant filed an Amended Complaint on June 14, 2024, and she brought the same

five claims: race discrimination pursuant to Title VII (Count I); hostile work environment

pursuant to Title VII (Count II); retaliation pursuant to Title VII (Count III); municipal

liability pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (Count

IV); and violations of Maryland’s Fair Employment Practices Act (Count V).

But, the district court again dismissed Appellant’s Amended Complaint for failure

to state a claim, this time with prejudice.

This appeal timely followed. Appellant appeals only the dismissal of Counts I, III,

and IV.

II.

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure de novo. Barnett v. Inova Health Care Servs., 125

F.4th 465, 469 (4th Cir. 2025) (citing Barbour v. Garland, 105 F.4th 579, 589 (4th Cir.

2024)). In conducting such a review, we accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true

and construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Barbour, 105 F.4th at

589 (citing Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 685 (4th Cir. 2018)).

7 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 8 of 37

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts “to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

III.

Appellant contends that the district court erred by dismissing her Title VII racial

discrimination and retaliation claims, along with her Monell claim. We agree as to the race

discrimination claim, but we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing the

retaliation and Monell claims.

A.

Race Discrimination Claim

Title VII prohibits an employer from “discharg[ing] any individual, or otherwise . . .

discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C § 2000e–2(a);

Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010). To survive a

motion to dismiss a Title VII race discrimination claim, the complaint must allege facts

“that plausibly state a violation of Title VII above a speculative level.” Bing v. Brivo Sys.,

LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 617 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Coleman, 626 F.3d at 190) (internal

quotation marks omitted). A claim for discrimination pursuant to Section 1983 need not

establish a prima facie case. But it must “allege facts to satisfy the elements of a cause of

8 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 9 of 37

action created by that statute.” Id. (quoting McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., State

Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 2015)). While “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are insufficient

to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint survives if it states a plausible claim for relief

that permits the court to “infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based upon

“its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79

(2009).

A plaintiff can establish a claim of racial discrimination pursuant to Title VII by

employing one of two methods of proof: (1) demonstrating through direct evidence that

her race was a motivating factor in the employer’s adverse employment action; or (2)

relying on the burden shifting scheme set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973). Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2019);

see also Wannamaker-Amos v. Purem Novi Inc., 126 F.4th 244, 255 (4th Cir. 2025).

Here, Appellant does not argue that she plausibly demonstrated her race was a

motivating factor in Appellee’s adverse employment action. She instead frames her race

discrimination argument on the burden shifting scheme in McDonnell Douglas. Pursuant

to the McDonnell Douglas framework, a prima facie case of discrimination requires a

showing of: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) an

adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred “under

circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Wannamaker-Amos,

126 F.4th at 255; see also Noonan v. Consolidated Shoe Co., Inc., 84 F.4th 566, 572 (4th

Cir. 2023). Courts frequently reframe the fourth element of a race discrimination claim

9 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 10 of 37

pursuant to Title VII as “similarly situated comparators.” Noonan, 84 F.4th at 573; see

also Tabb v. Bd. of Educ., of Durham Pub. Schs., 29 F.4th 148, 157 (4th Cir. 2022). This

is so because the fourth element can be met by establishing “similarly-situated employees

outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.” White v. BFI Waste Servs.,

LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

Here, the parties agree that the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged the first and

second elements, that is, Appellant’s membership in a protected class and her satisfactory

job performance. The district court further determined that Appellant’s “allegation that

she was forced to resign satisfies the adverse action requirement of Plaintiff’s disparate

treatment under Title VII.” J.A. 29. That conclusion is unchallenged by Appellee.

Accordingly, the only element at issue is whether Appellant sufficiently alleged in her

Amended Complaint that “similarly situated [comparators] outside the protected class

received more favorable treatment.” White, 375 F.3d at 295.

“A claim of discrimination in the enforcement of employee disciplinary measures

by reference to a comparator requires that the plaintiff’s prohibited conduct was

comparable in seriousness to the misconduct of employees outside the protected class, and

the disciplinary measures enforced against the plaintiff were more severe than those

enforced against other employees.” Seabrook v. Driscoll, 148 F.4th 264, 270 (4th Cir.

2025) (cleaned up) (citation omitted). “The similarity between comparators and the

seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be

meaningful.” Lightner v. City of Wilmington, N.C., 545 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008).

10 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 11 of 37

Specifically, there must be “sufficient commonalities on the key variables between

the plaintiff and the would-be comparator to allow the type of comparison that, taken

together with the other prima facie evidence, would allow a jury to reach an inference of

discrimination.” Swaso v. Onslow Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 698 F. App’x 745, 748 (4th Cir.

2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Eaton v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 657 F.3d

551, 556 (7th Cir. 2011)). While there is no “bright-line” rule for what makes two

comparators “similar” for purposes of Title VII claims, courts consider “whether the

employees (i) held the same job description, (ii) were subject to the same standards, (iii)

were subordinate to the same supervisor, and (iv) had comparable experience, education,

and other qualifications—provided the employer considered these latter factors in making

the personnel decision.” Spencer v. Virginia State University, 919 F.3d 199, 207 (4th Cir.

2019) (citation omitted); Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219, 223–24 (4th

Cir. 2019) (concluding that factors rendering comparators similar include whether they

“dealt with the same supervisor, [were] subject to the same standards and . . . engaged in

the same conduct.”); Cowgill v. First Data Techs., Inc., 41 F.4th 370, 381 (4th Cir. 2022).

In Haynes v. Waste Connections, the plaintiff, an African American employee, filed

suit pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against his employer, alleging he was

unlawfully terminated due to his race. At issue was whether the plaintiff produced

sufficient similarly situated comparators. In support of his claim, the plaintiff produced

evidence that a white employee, under the same supervisor as himself, had several

workplace infractions but was permitted to return to work, while the plaintiff with fewer

infractions and less “egregious” conduct was terminated. Haynes, 922 F.3d at 224. In

11 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 12 of 37

opposition, the employer argued that the nature of the plaintiff’s previous infractions

rendered the white employee an inappropriate comparator because the plaintiff’s

infractions allegedly caused property damage while the white employee’s did not. We

rejected the employer’s argument and found the plaintiff had identified sufficiently

similarly situated comparators because the different severity levels of the infractions did

not necessarily end the comparator analysis. Instead, we held, “a comparison between

similar employees ‘will never involve precisely the same set of work-related offenses

occurring over the same period of time and under the same sets of circumstances.’” Id. at

223 (quoting Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d 507, 511 (4th Cir. 1993)).

Here, Appellant identified thirteen “similarly situated comparators” for her Title VII

disparate treatment claim. These include:

• A white male police officer who used the “n-slur,” and in response was given the opportunity to retire without reprimand;

• A white male police officer with several DUI charges and a fleeing and eluding charge who was ultimately suspended but later reinstated at the same rank;

• A white male police officer who was charged with “use of force” against a man suffering from a mental health crisis but was not suspended;

• A white female police officer charged with multiple uses of force and false statement charges but who was not suspended and has since been promoted in rank;

• A white female police officer involved in a domestic assault and charged with making false statements who was initially suspended, but the suspension was later dismissed along with the charge, and she was later promoted to Sergeant;

12 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 13 of 37

• A white male police officer, the counterpart to the above domestic assault and false statement charge, similarly had his charges and suspensions dropped and was promoted to Lieutenant;

• A white male police officer who physically assaulted another officer but no charges were filed;

• A white female police officer charged with disorderly conduct and misconduct who was suspended but later retained and promoted to Major;

• A non-black female police officer who made a false statement but was not charged;

• Detective Gertz, a white male police officer involved in Appellant’s disciplinary hearing, who made a false statement but “never faced any consequence[s]” J.A. 52;

• A white male police officer who breached protocol by failing to report his crashing of a Baltimore Police Department vehicle and was suspended and demoted but not terminated nor forced to resign;

• A white male police officer charged with tampering with an internal investigation and making false statements was neither terminated nor forced to resign; and

• Sgt. Koushall, who the complaint alleges is a “non-black” male police officer, was found guilty of assault and misconduct and allegedly made false statements during his trial, but was neither terminated nor forced to resign.6

J.A. 50–54.

6 At oral argument, Appellee’s counsel asserted that “Sergeant Koushall is black.” Oral Argument at 2:28:38–45, Wanda Johnson v. Baltimore City, Maryland: Baltimore Police Dep’t, No. 25-1124 (4th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral- argument/listen-to-oral-arguments. However, because this case comes to us at the motion to dismiss stage, we are bound to accept as true Appellant’s allegation of Koushall as “non- black.”

13 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 14 of 37

The district court held that none of the 13 other employees that Appellant identified

were sufficiently similar to Appellant to qualify as comparators based on the ground that

“none were accused of and found guilty following a trial board of misconduct similar to

[Appellant].” J.A. 101. In doing so, the district court required a perfect one-to-one match

between proffered comparators’ conduct and Appellant’s alleged conduct that included

“assault, failing to notify her supervisors of the assault, and [] making false statements on

two separate occasions relating to an investigation.” Id. at 104. This was in error.

At this stage of litigation, viewing the facts in the light favorable to Appellant, we

conclude that Appellant has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate similar comparators so

as to allow for a reasonable inference as to their similarities to Appellant. First, Appellant

and all the proposed comparators are Baltimore police officers, and, therefore, subject to

the same standards. Second, while no single comparator perfectly aligns with every

incident of Appellant’s conduct, the analysis does not require a perfect one on one fit. See

Haynes, 922 F.3d at 223 (“[A] comparison between similar employees will never involve

precisely the same set of work-related offenses occurring over the same period of time and

under the same sets of circumstances.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, the

analysis focuses on the “similarity between [the] comparators” and their conduct such that

a jury could reach an inference of discrimination, so long as the comparison is

“meaningful.” See Lightner, 545 F.3d at 265. The comparators here fit within those

parameters.

Appellant was charged with misconduct for assault, failing to notify her supervisors

of assault, and making false statements. Many of the comparators Appellant points to

14 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 15 of 37

allegedly committed the same or similar offenses as Appellant. Indeed, Appellant’s

complaint alleges at least six other officers who were charged with assault and seven others

who allegedly made false statements -- all without being suspended and terminated. For

example, Appellant’s bullet point four contained in paragraph 54 of the Amended

Complaint alleges that a white female police officer “had several sustained uses of force

and false statement charges brought against her” but nevertheless was not suspended and

instead was later promoted to Sergeant. J.A. 51. As another example, the allegation

contained in paragraph 54, bullet point 5, of the Amended Complaint is that a white female

police officer was involved in a domestic assault and charged with making false statements

to a different police department, but her trial board hearing was dismissed “due to what

was referred to as an improper investigation” and she was later promoted to Sergeant. Id.

This domestic assault and false statement charge involved another police officer, a white

male, whose charges were dismissed and he was promoted to Lieutenant. Yet another

comparator is a non-black female police officer whom the Amended Complaint alleges

was never charged for making false statements that were directly contradicted by bodycam

footage.

And then, of course, there is Koushall, who “pulled back his fist all the way and

then hit” a woman in the face. Koushall v. State, 249 Md. App 717, 724 (Md. Ct. Spec.

App.). Based on this conduct, stemming from the exact 2018 nightclub incident in which

Appellant was involved, Koushall was found guilty of assault and misconduct following a

bench trial. And according to Appellant, Koushall also “made multiple false

15 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 16 of 37

statements . . . during his trial testimony.” J.A. 53. Yet, Koushall was never terminated,

forced to resign, or even demoted. He continues to work as a police officer for Appellee.

Taking all the allegations together, Appellant has provided multiple white or non-

black comparators who allegedly engaged in similar conduct to Appellant but received

disparate treatment. The dissent contends, however, that the proffered comparators must

be similar “in all respects.” Post at 28. But this is only partially accurate. Instead, what

our case law requires are comparators that are similar “in all relevant respects.” Cowgill,

41 F.4th at 382 (emphasis supplied); Haynes, 922 F.3d at 225. For each comparator,

Appellant details their position, race, conduct, and the consequences, if any, for the conduct

– that is, the relevant facts for a comparator analysis for someone in Appellant’s position.

Appellant alleged sufficiently similar comparators for a jury to reasonably infer their

similarity because the comparators: (1) engaged in similar conduct; (2) held the same

position; and (3) were assumingly subject to the same set of standards. Consequently, the

complaint alleges sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state “a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (2007)).

The dissent points to Cosby v. S.C. Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 93 F.4th 707,

715 (4th Cir. 2024) for the argument that the comparators here are distinguishable from

Appellant because she was “more strictly disciplin[ed]” as an employee “who [was] proven

– not just rumored – to be a bad apple.” Post at 33. And while it is true that some of the

comparators that Appellant points to were not “proven” to have engaged in the misconduct,

this does not doom her claim. We need only look to the very case the dissent cites to see

why. The dissent posits that in Cosby, this court found that the comparator was not valid

16 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 17 of 37

because “rumors” of a romantic relationship were not the same as a formal investigation.

Post at 33; Cosby, 93 F.4th at 715–16. But, in Cosby, the rumored engagement in a

romantic relationship was not the conduct at issue. Rather, it was the “alterati[on of] a

subordinate’s job conditions, or otherwise subjecting a subordinate to a hostile work

environment, after having a sexual relationship with that subordinate,” that was the conduct

that was at the heart of the case. Id. at 716 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the dissent’s

claim that Appellant’s conduct and her proffered comparators’ conduct were not

sufficiently similar because they were not found “guilty,” is misguided in the larger context

of the case which the dissent cites for support.

Of course, we take no issue with Appellee’s attempt to “assure accountability for

misdeeds within their ranks.” Post at 37. But, the point is that we want to ensure Appellee

does so in a nondiscriminatory manner. See Smith v. Univ. of North Carolina, 632 F.2d

316, 346 (4th Cir. 1980) (“[T]he law does not require, in the first instance, that employment

be rational, wise, or well-considered – only that it be nondiscriminatory.”); see also

Balderson v. Lincare Inc., 62 F.4th 156, 166 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding that “the question for

the court [is] not whether [the employer] had made a good, equitable, or even fair decision,”

rather it is whether the actual reason for the disparate treatment was discriminatory in

nature).

Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of Count I and remand for further proceedings.

17 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 18 of 37

B.

Retaliation Claim

Title VII also prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for

complaining about prior discrimination or retaliation. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). As with a

discrimination claim, a plaintiff may prove Title VII retaliation claims through either direct

evidence of retaliatory animus, or through the McDonnell-Douglas framework. Foster v.

Univ. of Md.-Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243, 249 (4th Cir. 2015). To prevail on a retaliation

claim pursuant to the McDonnell-Douglas framework, a plaintiff must first establish a

prima facie case by showing that: (1) she engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer

took adverse action against her, and (3) a causal relationship existed between the protected

activity and the adverse employment action. Id. at 250; Barnhill v. Bondi, 138 F.4th 123,

132 (4th Cir. 2024). Again, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff need not establish a

prima facie case. Rather, a plaintiff must merely produce sufficient allegations, accepted

as true, to state “a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

It is uncontested on appeal that Appellant engaged in a protected activity by filing

her EEOC Complaint on February 16, 2021, and by filing a complaint with Internal Affairs

on May 31, 2022. It is further uncontested that Appellant experienced an adverse

employment action through her forced resignation on June 1, 2022. This leaves only the

“causal link” element at issue on appeal.

A plaintiff may demonstrate that a protected activity caused an adverse action

through either one of two routes: (1) by establishing a “temporal proximity between the

18 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 19 of 37

protected activity and adverse action,” or (2) by establishing that “other relevant evidence

indicates ‘continuing retaliatory conduct and animus’ toward the plaintiff.” Alberti v.

Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 65 F.4th 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting

Lettieri v. Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640, 650 (4th Cir. 2007)). Therefore, the absence of

temporal proximity alone is not fatal, as courts “may look to the intervening period for

other evidence of retaliatory animus.” Lettieri, 478 F.3d at 650 (providing that the

existence of relevant facts alone, or together with temporal proximity, may be used to

establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action).

“Specifically, evidence of recurring retaliatory animus during the intervening period can

be sufficient to satisfy the element of causation.” Id. (citation omitted).

On February 16, 2021, Appellant filed her EEOC Complaint, and on May 31, 2022,

she filed an internal complaint with Appellee -- both protected activities. On June 1, 2022,

Appellant was forced to resign -- an adverse action. This one day temporal proximity

between Appellant’s protected activity and the adverse action could satisfy the “but-for

connection” required for the causal link element in a retaliation claim. However, temporal

proximity also requires the relevant decisionmaker to have been “actually aware of the

protected activity before making their decision.” Barnhill, 138 F.4th at 132. In her

Amended Complaint, Appellant alleges Appellee “knew of [Appellant’s] engagement in

protected activity prior to engaging in the [prior] adverse actions when they were informed

by [Appellant] directly, advised by an [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]

representative, or otherwise should have known that [Appellant] engaged in the complaint

process based on her informal and formal complaint filings.” J.A. 64. While we draw all

19 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 20 of 37

reasonable inferences in the Appellant’s favor, we are constrained to conclude that

Appellant’s Amended Complaint does not allege Appellees’ knowledge of her Internal

Affairs complaint “above the speculative level.” Evans v. United States, 105 F.4th 606,

616 (4th Cir. 2024); see also Wikimedia Found. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208

(4th Cir. 2017) (“[L]egal conclusions pleaded as factual allegations, unwarranted

inferences, unreasonable conclusions, and naked assertions devoid of further factual

enhancement are not entitled to the presumption of truth.”) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Here, Appellant does not cite to or allege any underlying facts to support this

conclusory assertion. Accordingly, the causal link element is not satisfied based on

temporal proximity alone for her May 31, 2022, protected activity. The temporal causal

nexus is similarly lacking with respect to Appellant’s February 16, 2021 EEOC Complaint,

as over a year passed between the EEOC Complaint and the forced termination. See

Barnhill, 138 F.4th at 132 (“[T]he gap between the protected activity and the adverse

employment action can generally be no longer than two months.”); Roberts v. Glenn Indus.

Grp., Inc., 998 F.3d 111, 127 (4th Cir. 2021) (three months was insufficient to infer a causal

relationship without other evidence of a causal link).

Still, this conclusion is not fatal to Appellant’s claim, as Appellant’s claim can

survive if she has alleged “continuing retaliatory conduct and animus” following her

protected activity. Alberti, 65 F.4th at 156. “[I]ntervening events can bridge what would

otherwise be a prohibitively long temporal gap.” Barbour v. Garland, 105 F.4th 579, 593

(4th Cir. 2024) (citing Holloway v. Maryland, 32 F.4th 293, 300 (4th Cir. 2022)).

20 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 21 of 37

Accepting Appellant’s allegations as true at this stage of the litigation, it is clear that

Appellant was unfairly treated over the course of two years with respect to the Internal

Affairs investigation. Yet, the events here do not support a plausible inference of a causal

link between the protected activity -- the February 16, 2021 EEOC Complaint -- and the

forced termination because the chain was set off long before Appellant filed her EEOC

complaint. Appellee’s trial board hearing and forced resignation followed from charges

initially levied against Appellant in June of 2020 -- eight months before she filed her EEOC

Complaint.

In support of Appellant’s argument that there was “continuing retaliatory conduct

and animus” following her EEOC filing on February 16, 2021, she points to the two

instances in which she was informed Internal Affairs would be involved: (1) in early 2019,

before Internal Affairs informed Appellant that she was being investigated, Lieutenant

Mark Walrath allegedly told Appellant she was being “blackballed” by Appellee and that

“Internal Affairs is up your a**;” and (2) following Appellant’s testimony in Koushall’s

trial, Assistant State’s Attorney Steve Trostle allegedly said to Appellant, “I feel bad for

you; just be prepared that the shit storm in coming because [Internal Affairs] is coming for

you.” J.A. 48–49; see Barnhill, 138 F.4th at 132 (“[E]ven in the absence of temporal

proximity, causation can be established through a pervasive sequence of intervening events

indicating disdain for or intermeddling with the protected activity.”).

In Holloway v. Maryland, 32 F.4th 293 (4th Cir. 2022), we found intervening

comments made by the plaintiff’s supervisor bridged a typically prohibitively long gap

between the plaintiff’s protected activity and subsequent adverse action as to establish

21 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 22 of 37

causation. In Holloway, the plaintiff filed his EEOC complaint on May 29, 2018. The

plaintiff’s supervisor told plaintiff in June that he knew of the EEOC complaint and that he

“would be involved,” and the plaintiff was fired by August. Id. at 297. We acknowledged

in Holloway that because there was almost a three month period between the protected

activity and adverse action, it did not support a finding of a causal link. However, it was

the intervening comment by the plaintiff’s supervisor that “temper[ed] the temporal gap”

between the protected activity and adverse action, allowing us to infer the plaintiff was

terminated “because” of his protected activity. Id. at 300 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)).

In contrast, in the case at hand, the statements relating to Internal Affairs’

involvement pre-date Appellant’s EEOC Complaint and are, therefore, not intervening

events. Accordingly, Appellant’s allegations as pled cannot support a reasonable inference

of retaliation because Appellee’s conduct is consistent with pursuing charges it lodged

against Appellant nearly a year before she filed her EEOC Complaint. And Appellant does

not make plausible allegations that the comments made by Lieutenant Walrath and

Assistant State’s Attorney Trostle regarding Internal Affairs’ involvement with the

investigation were sufficient “intervening events [to] bridge [an] otherwise [] prohibitively

long temporal gap.” Barbour, 105 F.4th at 593.

Similarly, there is no evidence or allegation to demonstrate “continuing retaliatory

conduct and animus” in the short one day span between Appellant’s Internal Affairs

complaint and her forced resignation.

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s retaliation claim

pursuant to Title VII.

22 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 23 of 37

C.

Monell Claim

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an avenue for plaintiffs to file suit against any person

who “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”

of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012).

In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), the Supreme Court

determined that “municipalities and other local government units” are “persons” within the

meaning of § 1983 and thus amendable to suit under the statute.

To hold a municipality liable for a constitutional violation pursuant to Monell, a

plaintiff must establish “the existence of an official policy or custom that is fairly

attributable to the municipality and that proximately caused the deprivation of their rights.”

Howard v. City of Durham, 68 F.4th 934, 952 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing Jordan ex rel. Jordan

v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 338 (4th Cir. 1994). An official policy or custom may be

expressed in four ways:

(1) [T]hrough an express policy, such as such as a written ordinance or regulation; (2) through the decisions of a person with final policymaking authority; (3) through an omission, such as a failure to properly train officers, that manifest[s] deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens; or (4) through a practice that is so persistent and widespread as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.

Id. at 952 (citing Starbuck v. Williamsburg James City Cnty. Sch. Bd., 28 F.4th 529, 533

(4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463, 471 (4th Cir. 2003))).

In her Amended Complaint, Appellant contends Appellee:

23 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 24 of 37

unlawfully deprived [Appellant] of her civil rights in violation of Sections 1981 and 1983 of the Civil Rights Act and the First Amendment when it retaliated against [Appellant] for having engaged in protected activity by complaining of discrimination on the basis of her race…[and] she was illegally subjected to a pattern of further retaliation, harassment, and disparate treatment.

J.A. 66–67.

Appellant alleges these acts were “part of an institutional practice or custom,

constituting an official policy of [Appellee] to cover up officer misconduct, discrimination,

and retaliation against fellow officers who stand up against the Department for violations

of their civil rights.” J.A. 67. Accordingly, Appellant’s Monell claim requires her to allege

the existence of a practice that is so “persistent and widespread as to constitute a custom or

usage with the force of law,” often referred to as the theory of custom “by condonation.”

Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463, 471 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, 767 F.3d 379, 402 (4th Cir. 2014).

To prevail under this theory, a plaintiff must point to a “persistent and widespread

practice of municipal officials, the duration and frequency of which indicate that

policymakers (1) had actual or constructive knowledge of the conduct, and (2) failed to

correct it due to their deliberate indifference.” Owens, 767 F.3d at 402 (internal quotation

marks omitted) (citations omitted). Sporadic or isolated violations of rights will not give

rise to Monell liability; only “widespread or flagrant” violations will. Id. at 402–03.

That means “proof of a single incident of the unconstitutional activity charged is not

sufficient to prove the existence of a municipal custom.” Semple v. City of Moundsville,

195 F.3d 708, 713–14 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Howard, 68 F.4th at 954

24 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 25 of 37

(“[b]ut fatally to his claim, Howard offers evidence of only a single incident of

unconstitutional activity: the incident in this very case. And ‘proof of a single incident of

the unconstitutional activity charged is not sufficient to prove the existence of a municipal

custom’”) (citing Semple, 195 F.3d at 713–14). Rather, there must be “numerous particular

instances of unconstitutional conduct to establish a custom or practice.” Misjuns v. City of

Lynchburg, 139 F.4th 378, 386 (4th Cir. 2025) (“[t]he only facts that Misjuns alleged are

regarding his own termination, and a custom cannot be established by proof alone of the

single violation charged. . . . Misjuns has alleged none other than his own experience.”)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the only specific instances Appellant alleges in support of her Monell claim

are her own. As noted, we have previously held this insufficient to support a reasonable

inference that there is a “persistent and widespread practice” so as to plausibly allege a

Monell claim. Otherwise, the Amended Complaint merely refers generally to “a custom

of discrimination,” and “an institutional practice or custom . . . to cover up officer

misconduct, discrimination and retaliation against fellow officers who stand up against

[Appellee] for violations of their civil rights.” J.A. 67–68. That bare, conclusory allegation

is not enough.

Appellant disagrees. In support of her contrary position, she argues that her

Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged the required factual allegations by stating:

It is well-known throughout the Department that [Appellee] routinely suspends officers for extended periods, keeps them in the dark during false investigations, and ultimately forces them out of the Department. Black officers, in particular, have been targeted and have suffered these injustices for far too

25 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 26 of 37

long; [Appellant] and her husband were not the only ones affected by this systematic mistreatment.

J.A. 58.

But this allegation is insufficient to cross the plausibility threshold. A comparison

with Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014)

demonstrates why. In Owens, the plaintiff alleged that “[r]eported and unreported cases

from the period of time before and during the events complained of” and “a number of

motions [] filed and granted during this time period [] demonstrate that [the defendant]

maintained a custom, policy, or practice to allow this type of behavior either directly or . . .

by condoning it, and/or knowingly turning a blind eye to it.” Owens, 767 F.3d at 403. We

determined “the assertions as to ‘reported and unreported cases’ and numerous ‘successful

motions’ are factual allegations, the veracity of which could plausibly support a Monell

claim.” Id. But, we also recognized “that courts have dismissed Monell claims when the

plaintiff has alleged nothing more than a municipality’s adherence to an impermissible

custom.” Id. We reasoned that the plaintiff in Owens had “done more than that: [the

plaintiff] has alleged facts—the existence of ‘reported and unreported cases’ and numerous

‘successful motions.’” Id.

In contrast, in the present appeal, while Appellant broadly references violations

outside her own, her allegations are far too general to be considered sufficient to survive

the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, in the absence of more specific factual

allegations of a widespread pattern of practice, the district court did not err in dismissing

Appellant’s Monell claim.

26 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 27 of 37

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

27 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 28 of 37

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I agree with the majority’s disposition of the retaliation and Monell claims. I would,

however, affirm the district court’s entire judgment, including its dismissal of plaintiff’s

racial discrimination claim under Title VII. After a two-year investigation and two-day

administrative hearing, Wanda Johnson was found guilty of assaulting a patron at Norma

Jean’s; failing to notify her supervisors of the assault; and, on two occasions, lying to

investigators. In response, Johnson says, the Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”) forced

her to resign. Assuming she is right, the BPD’s decision to do so was both lawful and

reasonable. Law enforcement officials cannot function without trusting one another, and

the BPD in particular has worked hard of late to rid itself of the many credibility issues

plaguing its workforce.

The majority disrupts this progress by entertaining Johnson’s lawsuit beyond its

worth. To plead a prima facie case of disparate treatment, of course, Johnson must allege

that the BPD more favorably treated employees who were “not just similar in some

respects, but ‘similarly-situated in all respects’” besides race. Spencer v. Va. State Univ.,

919 F.3d 199, 207–08 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577,

583 (6th Cir. 1992)). Johnson’s amended complaint, however, describes merely a

hodgepodge of BPD employees who all differed from her in material ways—be it in their

rank, misconduct, or guilt. Because her case is bound to fail, I dissent from stringing it

along any further.

28 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 29 of 37

In practically every workplace, there must be a “special relationship of trust between

the employer and employee.” Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc., 989 F.2d 1419, 1422 (5th Cir.

1993). Most jobs, for instance, require that subordinates “gain access to privileged

information regarding the employer’s particular business practices, methods of production,

names of customers, and so forth”—all of which would be destructive to the organization

if disclosed. Id. Trust is also essential to building cohesion between workers, and to

facilitating both cooperation and positive morale to the ultimate benefit of consumers. See,

e.g., Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 313 F.3d 205, 219 (4th Cir. 2002).

These well-understood dynamics apply even more so to the police. We have long

recognized the “undoubted need for mutual trust and confidence within any law

enforcement agency.” Jones v. Dodson, 727 F.2d 1329, 1338 (4th Cir. 1984). “[G]iven the

high stakes involved” in on-the-ground police work, including “life and death decisions,”

“the risks of disharmony can be grave.” Egger v. Phillips, 710 F.2d 292, 319 (7th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). “The need for confidentiality” also “cannot be gainsaid.” Id. Law enforcement

officials often must keep information private to, say, protect an informant’s safety or

prevent the suspects in an investigation from learning about ongoing surveillance.

Untrustworthy officers risk undermining these critical objectives. So too do they

impede the work of prosecutors, who generally rely on the police for evidence and

testimony. See 4 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 13.1(a), at 125–26 (4th ed.

2015). If officers cannot be trusted to dutifully perform investigations and truthfully relay

their findings, criminal cases can hardly be trusted to yield just outcomes. In short, just as

29 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 30 of 37

we must place “community trust” in the police, Liverman v. City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d

400, 408 (4th Cir. 2016), the police must place trust in their colleagues.

Johnson breached this duty of candor. Her colleagues cannot rely on her to honestly

report criminal behavior or not to cover it up. Indeed, not only did she repeatedly provide

“false statements” during the police investigation into the altercations at Norma Jean’s, but

she also assaulted a patron there and failed to tell her supervisors about doing so. Harrison

v. Johnson, Nos. 1209, 1229, 1230, 2021 WL 4841134, at *4 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 18,

2021). Just ask the administrative trial board that presided over her case: after two days of

reviewing evidence amassed over a two-year investigation, it “sustained” all the charges

against Johnson. J.A. 57. That is, it found her guilty of everything. J.A. 101, 103; see also

Balt. Police Dep’t Pub. Integrity Bureau, Internal Operations and Training Manual 121

(Sep. 2020) (“‘Sustained,’ means where the investigation determines, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur.”). The majority’s attempt to

interpret this conclusion as reflecting something other than culpability, see Maj. Op. at 6

n.5, makes less than little sense.

The adjudicatory process was perfectly fair, too. Johnson knew about the

investigation into her misconduct nearly three years before her hearing, even receiving the

BPD’s own “case file” about her a month in advance of the proceedings. J.A. 55. Before

the trial board, she enjoyed the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Md.

Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-107(e)(2), (4) (2021), repealed by Maryland Police

Accountability Act, 2021 Md. Laws ch. 59. And across the investigation and hearing, she

was represented by counsel. Id. § 3-107(e)(3); J.A. 55. Small wonder, then, that Johnson

30 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 31 of 37

admits there was nothing “wrong” with the “administration . . . of the trial board

proceeding.” Oral Arg. at 2:58–3:09.

True, her amended complaint alleges two officers committed “numerous errors and

misconduct” during the investigation. J.A. 57. But it goes on to say that this alleged

wrongdoing was “revealed and openly acknowledged at the trial board hearing.” J.A. 57.

In other words, the board had the opportunity to discount the findings and testimony of

these two officers based on Johnson’s countervailing evidence, yet it still found her guilty.

So to recap, Johnson says she was forced to resign after a yearslong investigation

and fair two-day hearing culminated in her being found guilty of four serious offenses. This

was no fly-by-night operation; the BPD gave Johnson plenty of time and opportunities to

explain herself, seeking her termination only when the trial board decisively deemed her

actions unacceptable. What exactly should her employer have done instead? Permitting

Johnson to stay would have only burdened Baltimore’s law enforcement with an officer

that the BPD validly suspected was not to be trusted. How can a police department fight

crime with someone who won’t accurately report it? Imagine too the hit to morale when

other members of the police force learn that their department was unable to dismiss from

its ranks someone who had assaulted, concealed, and lied in connection with the incident

at Norma Jean’s nightclub. What are other officers supposed to think?

Of course, these very problems were, and continue to be, at the top of the BPD’s

mind. In 2016, the Department of Justice found a host of lamentable issues marring

Baltimore’s police. See generally U.S. Dep’t of Just., Investigation of the Baltimore City

Police Department (Aug. 10, 2016). Among them were the “lack[]” of “meaningful

31 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 32 of 37

accountability systems to deter [police] misconduct,” id. at 10, and numerous “unethical”

officers who demonstrated poor “credibility and integrity,” id. at 151. In response, the BPD

entered into a consent decree wherein it committed to developing “[a] robust and well-

functioning accountability system.” Consent Decree at 112, United States v. Police Dep’t

of Balt. City, No. 17-cv-99 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2017), ECF No. 2-2. And the BPD has since

“undergone significant changes,” Lilly v. Balt. Police Dep’t, 694 F. Supp. 3d 569, 590 n.14

(D. Md. 2023), “ma[king] notable achievements in” its “misconduct investigations and

discipline,” Balt. Consent Decree Monitoring Team, Third Comprehensive Reassessment

9 (Oct. 8, 2025). The inquiry into Johnson occurred amid this commendable initiative, and

her resignation only furthered the good progress that the BPD has made. I would not set

back Baltimore law enforcement’s constructive efforts at much-needed reform.

Doing otherwise, the majority prolongs Johnson’s ill-fated lawsuit in the name of

Title VII. In particular, it reasons that she adequately alleged that thirteen similarly situated

nonblack employees at the BPD received better treatment than her, which, if true, would

support her race discrimination claim. See White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288,

295 (4th Cir. 2004). Examination of Johnson’s amended complaint, however, readily

reveals that these proposed comparisons are far too imprecise and vague to have any worth.

Consider first how Johnson herself frames the attempted analogues. Each of these

other employees, her amended complaint reads, kept their jobs despite being “suspected of

misconduct or other severe offenses.” J.A. 50. The majority does the same thing, stating

that Johnson “was charged” with various offenses. Maj. Op. at 14. But Johnson’s

32 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 33 of 37

wrongdoing was not merely “suspected” or “alleged.” To reiterate, she was found guilty

after the BPD performed a diligent investigation and hearing into her commission of

assault, noncommunication thereof, and recurring dishonesty. As the district court noted,

this difference alone dooms the validity of many of her proposed comparators. Surely an

employer does not run afoul of Title VII by more strictly disciplining an employee who is

proven—not just rumored—to be a bad apple. See, e.g., Cosby v. S.C. Prob., Parole &

Pardon Servs., 93 F.4th 707, 715–16 (4th Cir. 2024) (distinguishing employee formally

investigated for misconduct after concrete allegations by an identified subordinate from a

proposed comparator merely “rumored” to have done the same thing); Hurst v. District of

Columbia, 681 F. App’x 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (distinguishing employee

found guilty of a felony from a proposed comparator with suspected criminal history).

Tellingly, despite the appellee emphasizing the district court’s good observation on this

point, the majority never directly acknowledges that the trial board found Johnson guilty.

See Response Br. at 13 (“As the district court observed, ‘none of the proffered comparators

are availing, as none were accused of and found guilty following a trial board of misconduct

similar to [Johnson].’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting J.A. 101)).

Accounting for culpability leaves six so-called peers, each of whom the complaint,

when read charitably, states had at one point been deemed guilty of various offenses. But

to the extent those decisions were even reached by a trial board, they all differ from

Johnson’s case in meaningful ways. Most notably, none were found guilty of tendering

false statements during investigations into the commission and concealment of their own

assault. This makes all the difference. One of “the most likely sources of different but

33 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 34 of 37

nondiscriminatory treatment” is “the nature of the offenses committed.” Moore v. City of

Charlotte, 754 F.2d 1100, 1105 (4th Cir. 1985). As this court has written time and again,

“[t]he similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must

be clearly established in order to be meaningful.” Lightner v. City of Wilmington, 545 F.3d

260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008).

The majority stresses repeatedly that “a perfect one on one fit” among comparators

is not required. Maj. Op. at 14. But its failure to find a “fit” among the multiple possibilities

in the force comes pretty close to acknowledging that Johnson’s situation was, in fact,

different and unique. Once again, as the district court noted, “none of the proffered

comparators are availing, as none were accused of and found guilty following a trial board

of misconduct similar to Plaintiff.” J.A. 101. The district court got this exactly right, and it

is disappointing that its careful logic now fails to warrant due respect.

Other key factors only further undermine Johnson’s proposed comparators.

Nowhere does she allege, for instance, that any of these purported analogues “dealt with

the same supervisor,” a requirement “to establish a valid comparator.” Haynes v. Waste

Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Haywood v. Locke, 387 F.

App’x 355, 359 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)). In fact, although the majority claims

otherwise, nine were not even rank-and-file police officers, as Johnson was; they held

“differen[t] . . . positions” within the BPD, which would ordinarily render any “purported

comparison” to them “too loose.” Lightner, 545 F.3d at 265.

Finally, there is reason to believe that at least one proposed comparator highlighted

by the majority, Marlon Koushall, may belong to the same protected class as Johnson. After

34 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 35 of 37

all, in its first dismissal of Johnson’s case, the district court wrote “Koushall is also Black.”

J.A. 31 n.8. And in related litigation stemming from the affairs at Norma Jean’s, Johnson’s

own counsel has described Koushall as “a black male police officer.” Wiggins v. Balt.

Police Dep’t, No. 22-1089, 2023 WL 6381515, at *2 (D. Md. Sep. 29, 2023). So while

Johnson’s amended complaint and the majority now refer to Koushall as nonblack, the

district court rightfully doubted “whether [Johnson]’s allegation with respect to Koushall’s

race is entitled to the assumption of truth.” J.A. 102 n.12.

Johnson and the majority try to downplay these many defects by emphasizing how,

at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the plaintiff need only provide a “short and plain statement

of [her] claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). But the text

of this rule is not the get-out-of-comparators-free card they make it out to be. Johnson’s

claim must still be “plausible on its face,” providing “factual content that allows the court

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007)). And her amended complaint, even assuming its truth, misses this mark;

each of its proposed comparators differs from her in rank, misconduct, or culpability—

often all three at once.

Normally, this sort of imprecision warrants dismissal for failure to state a claim.

See, e.g., Seabrook v. Driscoll, 148 F.4th 264, 271 (4th Cir. 2025) (affirming dismissal of

Title VII claim because proposed comparators differed in position and misconduct). And

doing so here could not have caught Johnson by surprise; the district court had already

dismissed her first complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), exercising its discretion in

35 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 36 of 37

granting her leave to amend to correct its many deficiencies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

But Johnson did not learn her lesson. Instead, she filed an amended complaint that, while

longer, failed to meaningfully resolve the qualms raised regarding the first version. The

district court was thus right to dismiss her case again. By holding otherwise, the majority

disregards not just our own case law, but the Supreme Court’s familiar plausibility pleading

standard.

My friends in the majority stress that that they “take no issue with” the BPD holding

officers accountable and seek only to “ensure” that it “does so in a nondiscriminatory

manner.” Maj. Op. at 17. Of course we respect the nondiscrimination mandate embodied

in our landmark civil rights laws. But Title VII suits cannot by themselves accomplish what

is needed in the way of police reform. That requires judicial support for sound internal

accountability, which is a far more immediate presence in officers’ lives than an often-

delayed Title VII suit. Where, as here, the internal process has played itself out in a

fundamentally fair and rigorous manner, it warrants judicial respect. It is, after all, lax

police accountability and the absence of internal professional norms that have led to

racially tinged incidents that have caused so much community, and indeed national,

distress.

The BPD’s alleged discipline of Johnson had nothing to do with race, and

everything to do with the absence of trust. Against the amended complaint’s scattershot list

of proposed comparators, Johnson stands alone in being charged and found guilty—after

two years of investigation and two days of fair adjudication—of assaulting a civilian,

36 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1124 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/06/2026 Pg: 37 of 37

failing to tell her supervisors about the attack, and twice giving false statements during a

police investigation. The public wants police departments to assure accountability for

misdeeds within their ranks, but the majority now stymies the BPD’s commendable attempt

to do so. Title VII does not punish a department for rightfully ridding itself of someone

who was not only a detriment to the force’s good morale, but also to its honest functioning.

The district court’s judgment should be affirmed in all respects.