Edkins v. Jones International University, Ltd.

Filing 58

ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re: 34 by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 12/04/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01790-RPM
IVONNA EDKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Ltd.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Born, raised and educated in Poland, Ivonna Edkins came to the United States in 1987.
She is a citizen of this country. She received a master’s degree from the University of Phoenix,
an online university, in 2000. In October, 2007, Ms. Edkins was employed by University of
Phoenix as campus director and posted her resume on Higheredjobs.com. That resume came
to the attention of Terry Erdle, president of Jones Knowledge, Inc., parent of Jones International
University (JIU), an online university competing with Phoenix University and other such
companies. After negotiations, Ms. Edkins accepted an offer letter from Mr. Erdle, dated
September 5, 2007, for employment as Vice President of Enrollment at a base salary of
$180,000 with additional benefits and compensation. Her employment was approved by Glenn
Jones, owner of JIU, Jones Knowledge and other companies in other lines of business. The
plaintiff began her work at JIU in October, 2007.
At that time JIU was not making a profit. The business model was the operation of a call
center of academic counselors (AC’s) to recruit students. The principal focus of the plaintiff’s

work was management of the call center and her performance was measured by the number of
new student starts and course registrations obtained by the AC’s she supervised.
Glenn Jones had achieved success in other lines of business and set performance goals
that were much higher than what JIU had achieved before Ms. Edkins. To meet these goals Ms.
Edkins increased the number of AC’s by changing from direct hiring to the use of temporary
workers, training them and hiring those who proved to be productive. This “temp-to-hire” model
was approved by Mr. Jones but other executives at JIU disagreed with it as not cost effective.
Although his performance targets were not being met, Mr. Jones promoted Ms. Edkins to
Vice Chancellor of Admissions in May, 2008, because he saw improvements in admissions and
wanted to provide positive reinforcement. She received salary increases of 20% in her first nine
months.
Bruce Cunningham, a lawyer, went to work in the office of general counsel at JIU in
2005. Mary Ann Krawchuk was then General Counsel. According to Ms. Krawchuk, Mr. Jones
instructed her to hire a man and her relationship with Bruce Cunningham was contentious. (Pl.
Ex. 37). After developing a close relationship with Glenn Jones, Mr. Cunningham began
involvement with operations, including admissions. By November, 2008, Mr. Cunningham
became a problem for Ms. Edkins. Glenn Jones told her she was to work closely with Mr.
Cunningham and he involved himself directly with her staff, holding meetings with them that
excluded her.
The plaintiff was divorced and dating a man in the Vodka business at that time. Mr.
Cunningham made inquiries about Ms. Edkins’ personal life and this relationship. Knowing of
her background, Mr. Cunningham referred to the plaintiff’s ethnic origin at times in a derogatory

2

manner, calling her “Polska” and suggesting that if she married her “Vodka man” she would not
have to work.
JIU’s new student enrollment increased substantially by August, 2008, when it reached a
plateau. In planning a budget in the Fall of 2008, Mr. Jones set a goal of 111% growth in new
student enrollments and to double the number of AC’s. Ms. Edkins and others thought that
such an increase was an unrealistic expectation. She complained that the telephone system
and related technology in use was outdated and inadequate.
The goal was not being met by March, 2009. Mr. Cunningham increased his
involvement with admissions. His role was formalized on March 2, 2009, when Mr. Jones
announced the formation of Tiger Team One, which did not include Ms. Edkins, and explained
that Mr. Cunningham’s decisions were to be taken as having been made by Mr. Jones.
On March 30, 2009, Mr. Cunningham hired Dominick Arteca as Director of Admissions,
reporting to Ms. Edkins. That position had not been filled previously and Ms. Edkins did not
approve of the hiring. She thought that there were qualified women at JIU who should have
been considered. Although Ms. Edkins was made responsible for training Mr. Arteca, he told
her he did not need training. When Ms. Edkins reported this resistance to Mr. Cunningham by
e-mail, he replied in support of Mr. Arteca and sent an e-mail to Mr. Jones that Ms. Edkins’
behavior was not acceptable. Mr. Jones received the e-mail from Mr. Cunningham on the
evening of April 6, 2009. On the next day, Mr. Jones decided to fire Ms. Edkins. He delegated
that task to Bruce Cunningham. On April 9, 2009, at a meeting Ms. Edkins had scheduled with
Mr. Cunningham to discuss admissions and enrollment, he abruptly told her that JIU had lost
trust in her and her employment was terminated, effective immediately. The Human Resources

3

Director, Marcia Parent, was present and gave the plaintiff financial information relevant to
termination, including an announcement that Ms. Edkins was to receive a 2% pay increase,
retroactive to January 1, 2009, based on her 2008 performance.
Bruce Cunningham took over as Acting Vice Chancellor of Admissions and implemented
changes Edkins had proposed, including infrastructure and process improvements. After
receiving a letter complaining of gender discrimination, Jones University hired Debbie Love as
Vice-Chancellor of Admissions and Bruce Cunningham returned to his position as General
Counsel.
The plaintiff claims that Bruce Cunningham’s conduct created a hostile work
environment for her because of her Polish origin and her gender in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., which ultimately led to her
discharge on April 9, 2009, based on pretextual grounds. She asserts that Glenn Jones’
decision to terminate her employment was influenced by Bruce Cunningham and that Glenn
Jones, himself, had a gender bias as reflected in the treatment of other women in executive
positions and his disparate treatment of Bruce Cunningham after complaints about his conduct
in 2010. Bruce Cunningham and JIU parted ways on October 15, 2011. That was after
complaints of discrimination by other women in executive positions.
There is sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment
because of a blending of the protected groups of national origin, Polish, and gender, female.
The stated reason given for termination is a failure of performance. The determinative
question is whether that was a pretextual mask for discrimination. There is ample evidence that
Bruce Cunningham’s personality and vaulting ambition to become a dominant player at JIU and

4

Jones Knowledge was a problem for all of the people at JIU. He was arrogant, disrespectful,
dismissive and domineering in his treatment of all of them. He had gained the trust of Glenn
Jones who gave him almost full authority to manage the business of JIU.
It is also clear that Glenn Jones had little patience with the unprofitability of JIU and was
not realistic in his demands for improved performance. He looked only at results and did not
accept excuses or listen to explanations. He hired a consulting group to do an analysis of the
business and received its report which was critical of the technology in use.
It is significant that Glenn Jones decided to fire Ms. Edkins immediately after receiving
an e-mail from Bruce Cunningham critical of Ms. Edkins in her reaction to what was
insubordinate conduct by Arteca. That was impulsive, ill-advised and unfair. A jury may find
that it was substantially motivated by a gender bias. There is ample evidence that Bruce
Cunningham was a domineering male who was disrespectful and dismissive of women with
executive responsibilities. He had no previous experience in education or business
management. His ability to undermine them and to persuade Glenn Jones to allow him to
manage the enterprise is indicative of a gender bias in the company.
There is some evidence that Bruce Cunningham was also influenced by a perception
that a woman from Poland was not qualified for the position Ms. Edkins occupied.
This case should be determined by a jury. It is
ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
DATED: December 4th, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
________________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

5