Grimes v. The Board of Regents of the University System of the State of Georgia et al

Filing 60

ORDER that the Defendant's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Clerk shall terminated all deadlines and motions and close the case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/29/2015. (jah)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

FOR

THE

GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

LAKEITA GRIMES,

*

Plaintiff,

*

*

*

*

DR.

SAMUEL TODD,

CV

613-75

*
•

Defendant.

*

ORDER

Presently

pending

summary judgment.

before

the

(Doc. 44.)

Court

is

Defendant's

motion

For the reasons set forth below,

for

this

motion is GRANTED.

I.

Plaintiff

filed

several

BACKGROUND

claims

against

a

number

of

Defendants,

the core of which are that Plaintiff was discriminated against on the

basis of her race and gender when she was an undergraduate student at

Georgia Southern University ("GSU"), as evidenced by her treatment in
class

and by

the

decision to deny her provisional

Sport Management Graduate Program ("the Program").
17-2.)

admission to the
(Am.

Compl., Doc.

Plaintiff also alleges she was retaliated against for filing a

complaint about said discrimination with the United States Department

of Education, Office of Civil Rights ("OCR").

(Id^_ UK 63-73.)

On March 27, 2014, in response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants

VI

of

(Doc.

13.),

Plaintiff's

Furthermore,

the

the

Court dismissed Counts I, III,

Amended Complaint

Court

dismissed

without

any

Defendants violated Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.

claim

prejudice.

within

IV, V, and

(Doc.

Count

II

27.)

that

§ 1981 rights by denying her

admission to
Defendants
result,

the

Program with prejudice.

filed a

the

Court

racial harassment

Court

On April

supplemental Motion to Dismiss.
dismissed

Plaintiff's

42

(Doc.

U.S.C

for failure to state a claim.

specified that

that Defendant Dr.

(Id. )

§

(Doc.

2014,

28.)

1981

is

in his individual capacity,

As a

claim

for

6.)

The

35 at

"the only claim left in this case"

Samuel Todd,

14,

the claim
retaliated

against Plaintiff through his representations to the OCR.

(Id. at 9.)

Plaintiff

to

was,

at

alleges

that

Defendant

least partially,

Todd's

negative

&

(e).)

the

in retaliation for her raising claims

racial harassment while studying at GSU.
(c) ,

report

Specifically,

Plaintiff

(Doc.
alleges

17-2,
that

^[ 65,

OCR

about

69(b),

Defendant

Todd

misrepresented to the OCR the provisional admission standards for the

Program

and

Additionally,

Plaintiff's

qualifications.

64

&

66.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Todd misrepresented to

the OCR that she was "unruly."
claim

^%

(Id.

remains

from

(Id. t1 65 & 69(c).)

Plaintiff's

complaint,

the

Because only one
Court

limits

its

recitation of facts to those relevant to that retaliation claim.

Plaintiff

graduated from GSU with a Bachelor's

Dep.,

Doc.

44,

Ex.

1 at

16.)

point average was 2.53 on a 4.0 scale.
44-18.)

sport

Plaintiff's

cumulative

(Unofficial Transcript,

grade

Doc.

On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff submitted an application for

admission to a graduate program1 at GSU.
Ex.

in

(PSMF, Doc. 56, % 43; DSMF, Doc. 44-2, 1 43;

management in May 2009.
Grimes

degree

(Grimes Dep. at 14; Doc. 44,

6.)

1
The record is unclear as to which GSU graduate program Plaintiff
originally applied.
On her application, Plaintiff listed Master of Business
Administration as her preferred major.
(Graduate Application, Doc. 44, Ex. 6
at 3.)
Plaintiff claims it was her intention to take business classes during
the summer in order to accumulate credits that could apply towards her sport

management master's degree.

(Grimes Dep. at 14-15.)
2

There are
the

Sport

two ways by which an applicant can gain admission to

Management

provisional

Graduate

Program:

In

the

admission.

2009,

regular

written

admission

criteria

admission to the

Program required a Bachelor's degree,

cumulative

point

("MAT")

grade

if

the

applicant

recommendation,
(GSU

for

(Grimes Dep.
admission

a

chose

44

to

on

the

take

Miller

the

Doc.

44,

Ex.

consideration
at

34.)

into

the

4.)

for

In 2009,
Program

(Todd Decl. , Doc.
recommendations

44,

on

(Id.)

did

two

regular
the

admits

admission

Ex.

all

letters

not

of

faculty.

she

the

into

was

not

Program.

an

undergraduate

grade

point

(GSU Catalogue.)

2

f 16.)

completed

Meeting

test

written criteria for provisional

Defendant Todd was the Program Director of

Program

at least 2,75

Analogies

MAT,

Plaintiff

required

average of 2.5 and "a 3 6 MAT."

Program.

regular

and a personal interview with members of the

Catalogue,

qualified

average,

for

and

the

As

such,

applications

minimum

necessarily guarantee

the Program in 2009.

he

reviewed and made

for

criteria

admission

the

admission

for

to
to

the

admission.

(Id.

f

17;

DSMF

K 38; PSMF 1 38.)
Plaintiff

Examinee

received a

Report,

percentile

rank

Doc.
for

score of

44,
the

Ex.

total

386

7.)

This

group

percentile for her intended major.2
scored based on a
44,

Ex.

5 at

two-digit

7-8.)

"FIELD

(Id.)

(Id.)

LISTED."

(MAT

Examinee

score

test

2009 MAT.

was

the

asserts

that

because

sport

the

2 9th

Technical

the MAT was
Manual,

Doc.

scoring system changed

next to Intended Major it says
Doc.

management

44,

Ex.

7.)

was

not

Plaintiff

(PSMF % 63.)

available

as

an

she just picked a major because that

is what the test administrator instructed her to do.
3

32nd

After receiving her MAT score,

Report,

intended major option on the MAT test,

the

and

takers

insists she did not disclose her intended major as undecided.
Plaintiff

(MAT

in

In the past,
(MAT

Sometime before 2009,

On Plaintiff's MAT Examinee Report,
NOT

of

raw score.

to a three-digit scaled score.

2

on the April

(Doc.

44,

Ex.

22 at 2.)

Plaintiff
College

called Dr.

of

score

for

of

(Grimes Dep.

but

23-24

informed her that
score of

380.

about her MAT
informed

explained

and

provisional

36,

at

the

Studies,

Graduate

consideration
MAT

Timothy Mack,

the

admission
MAT

& 35-36.)

Dr.

at

35-36)

score and the

Plaintiff

that

the

scale

Jack N.
the

36 was

the

Averitt

criteria

for

Program required a

had

been

converted.

Mack called Plaintiff

equivalent

later and

of

a scaled

Plaintiff also contacted Defendant Todd

conversion.

he

the

that

into

scoring

a raw score of

(Id.

Dean of

did

not

(Id.

know

at

what

3 6.)

she

Defendant Todd

needed

to

score

on

the MAT for provisional admission and that he was unfamiliar with the

MAT scoring scale.
The

provide

"Total

MAT

a

Technical

range

Group"

(Id. at 37.)

of

and

scaled

for

including "Undecided".
tables

for

the

Manuel3

sets

scores

each

of

forth

conversion

equivalent

the

seven

to

intended

(MAT Technical Manual.)

"Total Group"

and

raw

"Undecided,"

tables

scores

fields

that

for

of

the

study,

Under the conversion
a raw score of

equivalent to a scaled score range of 389-395.

(Id. at 9. )

score of 386 is equivalent to a raw score of 33 or 34.

36

is

A scaled

(Id.)

For all

seven intended fields of study, a raw score of 36 is the equivalent of
at least a 389.

(Id.

at 9-16.)

On April 22, 2009, Plaintiff submitted an Applicant Questionnaire
for consideration for provisional admission to the Program.

Ex.

8.)

volunteered

On

the

at

two

questionnaire,
sporting

events:

Punt, Pass, and Kick competition.

Plaintiff
a GSU
(Id.)

stated

football

(Doc. 44,

that
game

she

and a NFL

Plaintiff did not

any work experience with a sport organization.

(Id.)

had

identify

Plaintiff noted

that she met with a faculty member at Statesboro High School about his
3

Plaintiff

admits

conversion tables.

that

she

has

(Grimes Dep. at 41.)

never

seen

a

MAT

manual

with

the

sport

related job because

(Id.)

Plaintiff

claims

she

was

that

in

interested in
the

fall

of

that

2008

type

she

of

work.

was

in

the

process of starting her own sport management company, Division I Boys,
by managing at
21.)

least

Plaintiff

trouble

and

however,

15

at-risk student

mentored

focus

on

these

school

athletes.

students

and

to

sports.

(Grimes

help

(Id.

them

On June 22,

2009,

12.)

On

July

application.

28,

(Doc.

2009,

44,

Ex.

(Grimes Dep.

Plaintiff
13.)

In

disclosed that "[i]n the afternoon,

appealed
her

at

the

appeal

44,

only

time

Plaintiff

On August 14, 2009,
Ex.

On

Plaintiff,

20;

Doc.

44,

of

her

denial

letter,

Plaintiff

[she] would mentor and tutor young

referenced

her

startup

experience working with at-risk student athletes.
25.)

of

(Id. at 21.)

students who were interested in football and basketball."

the

out

Plaintiff received a letter informing her that

she was not accepted into the Program.

is

at

did not provide information about this experience to GSU in

support of her application for admission to the Program.

Ex.

stay

66.)

at

Dep.

(Id.)

This

company

and

(Grimes Dep.

at 24-

Plaintiff's appeal was denied by GSU.

(Doc.

15.)

August

25,

2009,

Plaintiff

filed

a

complaint

with

the

OCR

against GSU alleging that she was denied admission to the Program for
the

fall

2009

(OCR Report,

semester because

Doc.

44,

Ex.

she

was

16 at 1.)

African-American

provided

a

written

recounted her

(Id.)

statement

qualifications.

female.

complaint and interviews with

During the

to

a

The OCR's investigation included

a review of documents pertinent to the

Plaintiff and GSU staff.

and

the

(Doc.

OCR
44,

investigation,

investigator
Ex.

17.)

wherein

Plaintiff

noted that she worked at a GSU football game and a NFL Punt,

Kick competition in the fall of 2008.

(Id. )

Plaintiff

she

again

Pass,

and

There is no mention,

however,
(Doc.

of

44,

On

Plaintiff's

Ex.

startup

company

in

her

letter

to

the

OCR.

17.)

February

13,

2010,

the

OCR

found

there

was

insufficient

evidence to support a finding of noncompliance with Title VI and Title
IX.

(OCR Report

at

its

1.)

determination.

The OCR set

(Id.

at

2-4.)

forth the

factual

Specifically,

the

findings

OCR

found

for

the

admission requirements for provisional admission were a 2.5 GPA and a
score in the 36th percentile on the MAT,

386

fell

below

Additionally,

the

provisional

"[t]he

and Plaintiff's MAT score of

admission

Program director

cut

off.

told OCR

(Id.

3,

5.)

Complainant

that

at

was

not considered for admission to the Program because her MAT test score

of

386

(32nd

regular

and

percentile)

fell

provisional

below

admission,

the

minimum

and

she

did

significant work experience in the sport industry."
The

not

report

state

noted

"that the Program's

explicitly that

admission;

however,

sport

the

requirement
have

any

(Id. at 4.)

admission requirements do

industry experience

applicant

not

for

questionnaire

is required for

includes

multiple

questions concerning applicant's volunteer and work experience in the
sport industry."

faculty

industry
without

member

are

(Id.)

stated

looked

experience

Additionally, the Program Director and a GSU

that

upon

because

successful in the Program.

applicants

more

with

favorably

those

with

work

for

experience

admission

experience

tend

in the

over
to

those

be

more

(Id. at 3. )

Looking into possible comparators, the OCR found that in the fall
of

2009

three

These three

regular

students

were

students had test

admission

admitted

scores and/or GPAs

requirements

provisional admission.

(Id.)

provisionally.

but

met

the

that

(Id.

at

4.)

fell below the

requirements

for

The Program Director explained that

those students were admitted due to significant work experience in the
sport
and

industry.
found

they

Plaintiff.

The OCR reviewed the
more

experience

in

students'

the

sport

44,

Ex.

than

The OCR additionally found that another student,

she was denied admission.

March

applications

industry

had a MAT score of 3 65 and a GPA of 2.52,

On

(Doc.

had

(Id.)

Asian female,
Plaintiff,

(Id.)

3,

2010

18.)

Plaintiff

appealed

the

OCR's

determination.

Plaintiff claimed that provisional

admission requires a raw score of 36 on the MAT,

(Id. )

like

(Id.)

In her appeal,

36th percentile.4

and that,

an

not a score in the

In response to the appeal, the OCR contacted

representatives of Pearson,

the company that administers the MAT test.

(Doc.

A

44,

informed

ranking

Exs.

the

for

20

&

OCR

a

21.)

Pearson customer

investigator

score

of

386

that

was

the

service

representative

corresponding

30 percent.

(Doc.

percentile

44,

Ex.

20.)

Additionally, another Pearson representative informed the investigator
that a scaled score of 402

is equivalent to a raw score of 44 and a

scaled score of 389 is equivalent to a raw score of 36.

(Doc. 44, Ex.

21.)

Plaintiff

informed
Plaintiff

the

contends

OCR

claims

about
that

that

the

GSU

is

the

MAT

Pearson

employees

scoring.

responsible

(PSMF
for

HH

"erroneously"

146

&

interpreting

148.)

the

MAT

scores and that the MAT Technical Manual merely provides schools with

suggestions
4

Plaintiff

regarding
also

score

stated that

interpretations.
(1)

her percentile

(Id.
rank

H

for her

148.)
intended

major would have been a 44 instead of a 29 if sport management could have
been selected as an intended major;

(2)

she failed to see why students with

experience in the industry are looked upon more favorably and how industry
experience can predict success in the Program; (3) she was "offended" at
being compared to the Asian female who was not admitted with a MAT score of
365 and a grade point average of 2.52; and (4) her grade point average was a
2.59 when she graduated from GSU.
(Doc. 44, Ex. 18.)
Additionally, the
Court notes that most of Plaintiff's purported work experience was done in
connection to class assignments.

(Id.)
7

Plaintiff's
the MAT

14)
to

own

is

exhibits

structured,

how

it

however,

It

that

is then "the

uses

MAT

Pearson

and scored."

administered,

(emphasis added) .
determine

show,

determines

(Doc.

56,

responsibility of

scores."

(Id.

at

"how

Ex.

1 at

each school

15.)

Plaintiff

provides no evidence to support her contention that individual schools
create
shows

their own scoring
that

Pearson

system for the MAT.

scores

the

test

and

then

Instead,

individual

the

evidence

schools

decide

what scores will be

sufficient for admission to their program and how

important

score

the

MAT

is

application for admission.
On December 17,
44,

Ex.

1.)

22.)

evaluating

a

student's

overall

(Id. at 14-16.)

2 012,

Plaintiff

when

the OCR denied Plaintiff's appeal.

filed this

suit

on December

7,

(Doc.

2012.

(Doc.

Defendant filed the presently pending motion for summary judgment

on

February

19,

2015.

(Doc.

44.)

The

Clerk

gave

Plaintiff

appropriate notice of the motion for summary judgment and informed her
of

the summary judgment rules,

materials in opposition,

Thus,
825

the right to file affidavits or other

and the consequences of

default.

the notice requirements of Griffith v. Wainwright,

(11th Cir.

materials

in

1985)

(per curiam),

opposition

has

are satisfied.

expired and

the

(Doc.

45.)

772 F.2d 822,

The time for filing

motion

is

now

ripe

for

consideration.

II.

Summary

judgment

SUMMARY

is

JUDGMENT

appropriate

STANDARD

only

if

"there

is

no

genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as

a

they

matter

could

substantive

of

law."

affect
law.

Fed.

the

R.

Civ.

outcome

Anderson v.

P.

of

Liberty
8

56(a).

the

Facts

suit

Lobby,

are

under

Inc.,

477

"material"

the
U.S.

if

governing
242,

248

(1986) .
the

The Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to

non-moving

Corp. ,

475

inferences

F.2d 1428,
citations
evidence.
Funeral

party,

U.S.

in

574,

[its]

1437

Matsushita
587

non-moving

U.S.

(11th Cir.

834

477

U.S.

at

response

934

to

also

255;

(11th

the

Co.

v.

draw

Four Parcels

must

930,

must

(en banc)

Court

F.2d

party's

v.

1991)

Indus.

and

The

Anderson,

Home,

(1986),

favor."

omitted).

Elec.

Zenith

"all

of

Real

justifiable

Prop.,

avoid

weighing

McKenzie
Cir.

v.

for

conflicting

Davenport-Harris

1987) .

motion

Nevertheless,

summary

judgment

and a mere

evidence will not suffice.

911 F.2d 1573,

Walker v. Darby,

1990); Pepper v. Coates, 887 F.2d 1493,

941

(internal punctuation and

consist of more than conclusory allegations,

Cir.

Radio

the

must

"scintilla" of

1498 (11th Cir.

1577

(11th

1989).

The moving party has the initial burden of showing the Court, by
reference

to

materials

on

file,

the

basis

for

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) .

the

motion.

How to carry this burden

depends on who bears the burden of proof at trial.
City of Atlanta,

movant

has

the

2 F.3d 1112,

burden of

1115

proof

at

(11th Cir.

trial,

Celotex

the

Fitzpatrick v.

1993).

movant

When the non-

may

carry the

initial burden in one of two ways — by negating an essential element

of the non-movant's case or by showing that

there is no evidence to

prove a fact necessary to the non-movant's case.

See Clark v. Coats &

Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 606-08 (11th Cir. 1991)
v. S.H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S.

144

(1970)

(explaining Adickes

and Celotex,

477 U.S.

317).

Before the Court can evaluate the non-movant's response in opposition,
it must

first

consider whether the movant has met

its

initial burden

of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that

it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
9

Jones v.

City of

Columbus,

120

conclusory

F.3d 248,

statement

that

trial is insufficient.

If

—

and only

non-movant

there

is

may

judgment."
trial,
the

if

Id.

a

(11th

the

Clark,

avoid

indeed

254

—

non-movant

the movant

curiam).

meet

issue

its

only

of

by

fact

non-movant

the

initial

A mere
burden

burden,

at

the

"demonstrat[ing]

that

bears

precludes

the

burden

of

that

summary
proof

at

the non-movant must tailor its response to the method by which

movant

carried

its

initial

burden.

If

evidence affirmatively negating a material

respond
motion

with
at

evidence

trial

Fitzpatrick,

2

sufficient

on

F.3d

the

at

evidence on a material

record

contains

movant

or

withstand

"come
a

fact,

evidence
forward

directed

its burden by

to

material

1116.

If

fact

the

movant

that

was

with

as

a

presents

directed
to

shows

Id.

"overlooked

additional

motion

at

(11th Cir. 1981).

or

movant

the non-movant

sought

at

1117.

trial

The

be

an

"must

verdict

negated."

absence

of

ignored"

based

by

the

sufficient
on

non-movant

the

alleged

cannot

repeating

to

carry

conclusory

See Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d

Rather,

otherwise

or

evidence

relying on the pleadings or by

affidavits

Procedure

fact,

withstand

allegations contained in the complaint.
1032, 1033-34

the

the non-movant must either show that the

verdict

evidentiary deficiency."

with

(per

cannot

carries

judgment

material
the

1997)

929 F.2d at 608.

summary

When

Cir.

the non-movant must respond

provided by

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

for summary judgment on Plaintiff's

claim

56.

III.

Defendant Todd moves

DISCUSSION

that he retaliated against her for activity protected under
10

§ 1981.

"Section 1981 prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making
and enforcement of
Group,

Inc.,

168

public and private
F.3d

468,

472

contracts."

(11th

Cir.

Ferrill v.

1999).

"To

claim of retaliation under Title VII or section 1981,
prove

that

suffered

[s]he

a

engaged

materially

in

statutorily

adverse

action,

relation between the two events."

360

F.

App'x

Elevator

110,

Co.,

(alteration

513

in

115

(11th Cir.

F.3d

1261,

original).

elements of a claim,

the

"After

[defendant]

was

ultimate

defense

burden

to

of

liability."

proving

Cir.

2008))
has

(per

Defendant

curiam)

established

the

has an opportunity to articulate

Id.

"The
by

evidence and that the reason provided by the

A. Prima Facie

causal

Bagby

plaintiff

retaliation

for prohibited retaliatory conduct."

some

Inc.,

a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the challenged []
affirmative

[s]he

Emory Healthcare,

(11th

the

a

(quoting Goldsmith v.

2010)

1277

activity,

there

Saunders v.

establish

a plaintiff must

protected

and

Parker

a

action as an

plaintiff

bears

preponderance

[defendant]

the

of

the

is a pretext

Id.

Case

Todd

does

not

contest

that

Plaintiff

engaged

in

a

statutorily protected activity and the Court agrees.

Indeed, filing

an OCR complaint can be considered protected conduct.

(Doc. 35 at 7);

See Tucker v.

296

2006)

("Tucker

Talladega City Sch. , 171 F. App'x 289,

engaged

in

statutorily protected

(11th Cir.

expression

when

he

filed the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and EEOC complaints"); see also
Suber v.

1989) .

Bulloch Cnt.

Rather,

Bd.

Of

Defendant

Educ. , 722

Todd

F.

contends

Supp.

that

736,

747

(S.D.

Plaintiff

demonstrate the second or third elements of her prima facie case.

11

Ga.

cannot

Plaintiff
when

avers

Defendant

that

Todd's

she

suffered a

misrepresentations

materially
regarding

adverse
the

action

provisional

admission requirements for GSU's Sport Management Graduate Program and

Plaintiff's qualifications altered the findings of the OCR.5
at 28.)
any

Defendant Todd argues that

evidence

that

he

provided

Plaintiff has

false

information

alleged actions were materially adverse.

(Doc. 56

failed to provide

to

OCR

or

that

the

After careful consideration,

the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish her prima facie
case of

retaliation.

"To

succeed

defendants'

Regents
2013),

actions

retaliation

were

would

claim,

materially

'dissuade

plaintiffs

adverse,

[ ]

a

Univ.

cert,

42

(2013)

68

(2006)).

Sys.

denied,

of

133

Ga.,

S.

Ct.

509

F.

2881

reasonable

App'x

(2013),

must

906,

that

that

the

[person]

Bowers v.
911-12

from

Bd.

(11th

reh'g denied,

(quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White,

of

Cir.

134 S.

Ct.

548 U.S.

53,

The Court addressed this issue when ruling on Defendants'

motion to dismiss.
Inc.,

show

meaning

supporting a charge of discrimination.'"

of

Stores

a

actions

challenged
making or

on

141

(Doc.
F.3d

"misrepresentations

35 at 7-8.)

1453

about

a

(11th

Relying on Wideman v. Wal-Mart

Cir.

student's

1998),

work

the

record

Court

and

held

that

personality

could resemble misrepresentations about employee's attendance and work

relationships" and therefore could qualify as adverse acts.

(Doc. 35

at 7-8.)

However, Plaintiff has failed to show there is a genuine issue as
to

whether Defendant

Todd made

any misrepresentations

to

the OCR or

5
In her Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff also claims Defendant Todd
represented her as "unruly" to the OCR (Am. Compl. , H 64); however, neither
party addresses this allegation in their briefs. Therefore, the Court will
not include this stray allegation in its discussion.
Moreover, consideration
of this issue would not change the Court's decision because the Court finds
that Plaintiff has not proven a prima facie case or demonstrated pretext.
12

that these alleged misrepresentations altered the findings of the OCR.
In her response to his motion for

summary judgment,

that Defendant Todd altered the findings of
investigators

minimum

when

he

stated

requirement.'"

evidence to

Plaintiff's

(Doc.

support this

56.

(11th Cir.

1989).

OCR when he

MAT

score

28.)

'fell

the evidence

below

the

provides

no

conclusory statements

See Peppers v. Coates,

Moreover,

"lied to OCR

Plaintiff

claim and Plaintiff's

cannot defeat summary judgment.
1498

at

Plaintiff claims

shows

887 F.2d 14 93,

that

Plaintiff's

MAT test results did fall below the minimum required for consideration

for provisional admission to the Program.
The

Program

GSU Catalogue

36

MAT."

misrepresented

referred

to

Grimes Dep.
"3 6

that

"may be granted with a 2.5

and ... a
Todd

states

MAT"

a

at

in

percentile.
statement

is

provisional

undergraduate

(GSU Catalogue.)
to

the

percentile

35.)
the

the

OCR

that

rather

than

raw

Plaintiff claims Dr.

GSU

Catalogue

(Grimes
correct,

Dep.

at

referred

35.)

Plaintiff's

"3 6

Group"

and

all

possible

to

"36 MAT" refers to a percentile,
32nd or

29th percentile,

catalogue

the

(Doc.

a

56

raw

at

score

Dr.

Mack's

fell

(MAT

Plaintiff received a scale score of 386.

in

28;

Mack informed her that the

still

majors.

Defendant

score.

raw score is equivalent to a scaled score range of

"Total

alleges

MAT"

Assuming

score

the

grade point average

Plaintiff

the

admission to

(Doc.

short.

not

alleged

A

36

as

a

3 89 to 3 95 for the

Catalogue
44,

and

Ex.

at

7.)

9-16.)

Assuming

Plaintiff's scores were either in the

depending on

the

major.

(Id.)

Therefore,

Plaintiff did not meet the minimum MAT score required for provisional

admission as a percentile either.
misrepresent

the

MAT

Thus,

requirements

13

for

even if Defendant Todd did

provisional

admission

to

the

OCR,

the

objective

evidence

before

the

OCR

and

the

Court

still

supports the same conclusion.6
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Todd made misrepresentations
to

the OCR regarding her work history in the

26.)

The

information

provided

to

the

industry.

OCR

regarding

experience in the sport industry was provided to
Plaintiff.

(Doc.

44,

had volunteered at

The OCR found that

however,

the

concerning

& 17.)

statement

said

is

questionnaire

volunteer

and

management

not

argued

additional

false.

work

did

not

Plaintiff

6

As

experience.

the

17.)

Division

have

any

contends

I

In fact,

in

questions

the

significant

evidence

that

in

addition

to

she was trying to start a

Boys,

working

with

However,

OCR

the only time

Plaintiff's

work

to prove

was

argument

aware

Plaintiff

in

at-risk

Plaintiff has

this

of

this

mentioned

her entire GSU admission process

understands

sport

OCR letter notes that the

evidence that the

throughout

Court

Ex.

multiple

experience

(Grimes Dep. at 21 & 40.)

or presented

this experience

44,

required for admission;

has not provided any

company,

student athletes.

she

a GSU football

(Doc.

includes

While the

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

is

volunteering at two sport industry events,

sport

told the OCR that

and Kick competition.

industry experience

applicant

(id.),

Plaintiff's

"the Program's admission requirements do not state

sport

Director

Plaintiff

56 at

the OCR directly by

industry related events:

(OCR Report at 4.)

experience
this

Pass,

applicant's

industry."

Program

16

two sport

game and a NFL Punt,

explicitly that

Exs.

(Doc.

and the

respect,

WGSU

admission standards" indicated that a "MAT raw score of 36 was equivalent to
a MAT scaled score of 380 . . . ."
(Doc. 56 at 28.)
As Plaintiff appears to

interpret

it,

GSU is responsible

for setting

its own scale,

outside

of

Pearson and therefore any Pearson scales or representations are irrelevant to
GSU admissions.
(See PSMF UK 146 & 148.)
Therefore, because Dr. Mack

apparently told Plaintiff that a 380 was the minimum score, any charts or
tables provided by Pearson were of no import.
As detailed above, there is
nothing in the record to support such a contention.
14

OCR

investigation

was

application when she
and

tutor

young

in

stated,

students

basketball."

(Doc.

44,

Plaintiff

have

less

did

her

letter

"[i]n the
who

Ex.

appealing
afternoon,

were

13.)

the

[she]

interested

Additionally,

experience

in

the

denial

in

the

sport

of

her

would mentor
football

OCR

and

found that

industry

than

the

three students who were admitted provisionally into the Program in the
fall of 2009.

(OCR Report at 4-5.)

Plaintiff has

failed to

show that any statements Defendant Todd

made to the OCR were false or misrepresented the provisional admission
requirements

or

Plaintiff's

qualifications.

Additionally,

Plaintiff

has failed to show that any statements Defendant Todd made to the OCR
altered

their

determination.

Thus,

this

Court

finds

that

Plaintiff

has failed to establish her prima facie case of retaliation.

B. Legitimate/ Non-Discriminatory Reason

Even assuming that Plaintiff established a prima facie case,
Court

nonetheless

reasons

behind

legitimate,

finds

Plaintiff

Defendant's

has

actions.

non-retaliatory

reasons

failed

Defendant

for

his

to

show

pretextual

Todd

has

articulated

representations

OCR. Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case,

then has
reason

an

for

opportunity to
the

challenged employment

Corp. , 141 F.3d 1457,
discrimination

articulate

claim,

1460
the

Meeks v. Computer Assocs.

a

legitimate,

action.

employer's burden
Int'l,

is

15 F.3d 1013,

(11th Cir.

1989)).

15

the

non-retaliatory
Taco

Bell

"As with a Title VII
'exceedingly light.'"
1021

(citing Tipton v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
1495

to

the employer

Olmsted v.

(11th Cir. 1998).

the

(11th Cir.

1994)

872 F.2d 1491,

In

this

case,

Defendant

Todd

has

provided

legitimate

non-

retaliatory reasons for the provision of any incorrect information to
the OCR.
that

In regards to the MAT score requirements,

Defendant

Todd

was

unfamiliar

with

the

there is evidence

MAT

test

due

to

infrequent submission and was not aware of how it was scored.

Decl.
to

H 18; Grimes Dep. at 36-37.)

the

OCR

regarding

and Plaintiff's

intent
Todd

to

his

volunteering at
and

MAT

As

to

Thus, any misrepresentations made

requirements

to

Plaintiff's

statement

for

provisional

admission

that

work

experience,

Plaintiff's

work

Defendant

history

of

two sporting events was insignificant was objectively

reasonable.

sufficient

(Todd

score were made unintentionally rather than with the

retaliate.

claims

true

the

its

meet

The

Court

Defendant's

therefore

minimal

burden

finds

of

such

reasons

production

at

this

stage.

C.

Pretext

In

order

introduce

"to

avoid

significantly probative

reason is merely a pretext
1228

summary

(citation omitted) .

judgment

evidence

[the

showing that

for discrimination."

The law of

that

retaliation

was

the

real

Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec,
2011)
F.3d

(citing Brooks
1160,

1163

v.

(11th

Cnty.

Cir.

the
990

is clear:

must

asserted
F.2d at

"A reason

the reason was

reason."

false,

Burgos -Stefanelli

v.

410 F. App'x 243, 247 (11th Cir.

Comm'n of

2006));

Clark,

this Circuit

is not pretextual unless it is shown both that
and

plaintiff]

Jefferson

Morrison

Ga., 432 F. App'x 877, 881 (11th Cir. 2011)

v.

Cnty.,

City

(same).

of

Ala.,

446

Bainbridge,

"A plaintiff does

not demonstrate pretext by showing that the defendant had a mistaken
belief

about

the

facts

that

formed

16

the

basis

for

the

alleged

non-

retaliatory reason.

Instead,

the plaintiff must present evidence that

the defendant did not honestly believe the facts on which it based its

non-retaliatory reason."
2d

1226,

so,

1239

(N.D.

Plaintiff

Ala.

"must

inconsistencies,

[individual's]

Smith v. Constr. Datafax,
2012)

(internal

demonstrate

such

incoherencies,

proffered

citations

weaknesses,

or

legitimate

Royal Atl.

Developers,

(citing Combs v.

1997))
that

Inc.,

reasons

610

for

F.3d 1253,

Plantation Patterns,

106

(internal quotations omitted).
might

motivate

merely recast
Chapman

v.

Conclusory

the

Al

a

reasonable

reason,

Transp.,

allegations

without more,

Mayfield v.

but

"are not

229

or

meet

its

in

the

action

that

credence."

F.3d 1519,

it

1012,

unsupported

Patterson Pump Co.,

do

Alvarez

(11th Cir.

1538

a

2010)

(11th Cir.

If the proffered reason is one

F.3d

sufficient

To

implausibilities,

1265

[individual],

must

omitted) .

contradictions

reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of
v.

Inc., 871 F. Supp.

a

plaintiff

cannot

"head on and rebut
1030

(11th

assertions

of

Cir.

it."

2000).

retaliation,

to raise an inference of pretext."

101

F.3d 1371,

1376

(11th Cir.

1996)

(quotation omitted).
Here,

are

Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant Todd's reasons

pretextual.

Defendant

Todd

conclusion

that

Plaintiff
lied
he

to

did

only makes

the
in

OCR,

fact

reason for any alleged lie.

unsupported

offering

lie

or

that

no

allegations

argument

retaliation

to

that

support

was

the

a

true

Defendant Todd provided evidence that he

was unfamiliar with the MAT test due to its infrequent submission and

was not aware of the change in how the test was
H 18.)

pretext

And the law of this circuit is clear:

by

establishing

a

defendant

was

scored.

(Todd Decl.

a plaintiff cannot show

mistaken

in

his

belief.

Archie v. Frank Cockrell Body Shop, Inc., 581 F. App'x 795, 799

17

(11th

Cir. 2014)
71

(citing Elrod v. Sears,

(11th Cir.

939 F.2d 1466,

MAT test and its change

position as Program Director.

in scoring because of his

(PL's Rsp.,

Doc.

56, at 29.)

However,

she provides no evidentiary support for this allegation.7
Plaintiff

1470-

Plaintiff's response is that Defendant Todd was

1991)).

familiar with the

Roebuck & Co.,

admitted that

Defendant

Todd told her he

was

In fact,

unfamiliar with

the MAT as well as the scoring scale prior to her filing a complaint
with the OCR.

(Grimes Dep.

Plaintiff

has

similarly

experience was not a

OCR recognized,
has

not

(Todd

provisionally

any

argument

Decl.

admitted

failed to show that

athletes,

Even

U

17.)

over

Court

any

evidence

that

While true,

rebut

Defendant

Indeed,

of

all

Todd's

the

were

three

work

as

the

Plaintiff
"holistic"

individuals

found

to

Thus,

Plaintiff has

(OCR Report at 4.)

have

more

any representation about her work experience was

considering

Plaintiff

can

to

Plaintiff,

her

readily

find no

experience

admits

information in her application.
the

provided

factor that GSU considered.

significant work experience.

false.

not

work history is not a stated qualification,

presented

approach.

at 36-37.)

that

managing
she

(Grimes Dep.

indication that

did

at

Plaintiff

at-risk
not

21.)

ever

student

include

that

Additionally,

informed

the

OCR

about this experience or that Defendant Todd or the OCR knew of it on
their own accord.

Finally,
Plaintiff

7

has

even if work experience was not a normal consideration,
presented

no

argument

that

retaliation

was

the

true

Plaintiff points to an email Defendant Todd sent regarding the MAT as

evidence of his familiarity with the MAT scoring system.

(PL's Sur-Reply,

Doc.

2010 after the OCR

59 at 4.)

However,

this email was sent on March 18,

issued its determination regarding Plaintiff's allegations.
(Todd Dep., Doc.
59, Ex. 1 at 35; OCR Report at 1.) Thus, it does not support Plaintiff's
contention that Defendant Todd was familiar with the MAT and its scoring
system when he spoke to the OCR.
18

reason.

Indeed,

she

presents

only

conclusory allegations

Todd lied to cover up discrimination and retaliation"
is

For

false

the

and that

above

retaliation

mentioned

is

the

reasons,

real

reason."

Defendant

is

that

and the

"Dr.

"reason

(Doc.

56

at

29.)

entitled

to

summary

judgment.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 44)
GRANTED.

Defendant.
CLOSE

the

The

Clerk

The

is

Clerk

DIRECTED

SHALL

to

enter

terminate

FINAL

all

JUDGMENT

deadlines

and

in

favor

motions

is
of

and

case.

=^9*4

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this^o*^7^^iay of June, 2015.

H0N0kA3£j£f J.

RXNDAL HALL

UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT

19

OF GEORGIA