Combat veteran sues Maryland over shelved harassment complaint

A former Maryland correctional officer and combat veteran says state prison officials froze her sexual harassment complaint during her military deployment and never restarted it. The federal lawsuit alleges retaliation, destroyed evidence and a constructive discharge after her return to work. Why it matters: - The lawsuit tests whether a state employer can delay a harassment investigation because an employee is deployed on military orders. - The complaint also raises broader questions about retaliation protections for servicemembers returning to civilian jobs. - Dorman is seeking damages and court-ordered workplace changes, including training on USERRA and anti-harassment rules. What happened: - Janae C. Dorman filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on June 12, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. - The suit names the State of Maryland, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and Dorman’s former supervisor. - Dorman worked as a Correctional Officer II at Eastern Correctional Institution from April 2017 to August 2024. - In April 2022, Dorman filed a written sexual harassment complaint against her direct supervisor. - The complaint alleges unwanted sexual propositions, comments about her appearance and unconsented physical contact. - Dorman says no investigator ever contacted her despite repeated follow-up requests. - In July 2022, Dorman deployed overseas under federal military orders and served in Kuwait, Jordan and Syria. - Dorman came under enemy fire and received the Combat Action Badge. - In October 2022, a deputy director in the Department’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity confirmed in writing that the complaint had been “held in abeyance due to your deployment, and will be reinstated and thoroughly investigated.” - Dorman alleges the investigation was never restarted. - After she returned to duty in October 2023, the Department put the accused supervisor back on her shift and back in a position of authority over her. - The Department also denied her seniority-based transfer request, while approving transfers for officers with less seniority, according to the complaint. - Dorman says her renewed written complaints went unanswered. The details: - The complaint alleges that in March 2024, the supervisor positioned himself at the facility’s entry gatehouse and watched Dorman partially disrobe for the mandatory entry screening. - Multiple officers documented the incident in written statements, according to the filing. - Dorman alleges a senior facility official then ordered the investigative records destroyed. - The complaint says that official stated Dorman had “probably filed up the road,” a reference to an expected outside civil rights complaint. - The complaint alleges a lieutenant refused the destruction order, preserved the original records and documented the directive. - Dorman says she filed an emergency complaint with the Department’s equal employment office on March 22, 2024, and received no response for 76 days. - She alleges the Department’s conduct made her working conditions intolerable. - Dorman says she was constructively discharged on August 23, 2024. - The lawsuit seeks compensatory and liquidated damages under USERRA’s willful-violation provision. - The suit also seeks equitable relief, including workforce training on USERRA and anti-harassment obligations. Between the lines: - The complaint frames the case as more than a delayed HR process; it alleges deployment was treated as a reason to suspend civil rights enforcement. - Preserved records, if proved, could become central evidence because the filing alleges a later order to destroy them. - The allegations also suggest a clash between military service protections, workplace harassment response duties and state correctional chain-of-command decisions. What’s next: - The case, Janae C. Dorman v. State of Maryland, et al. (No. 1:26-cv-02344-SAG), is pending in federal court in Maryland. - Jordan D. Howlette of Justly Prudent represents Dorman. - The defendants have not yet responded publicly in the filing provided. - The lawsuit cites USERRA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. - Justly Prudent listed its website as More information . - The firm also listed social media pages on LinkedIn , Instagram and Facebook .