Monroe v. Columbia College Chicago et al
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendants motion to dismiss Counts I through III, R. 52 , is granted. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/27/2018:Mailed notice(srn, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
VAUN MONROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COLLEGE OF CHICAGO &
BRUCE SHERIDAN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17-cv-5837
Judge Thomas M. Durkin
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Vaun Monroe brought this action against Defendants Columbia
College of Chicago and Bruce Sheridan asserting claims of race discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII (Counts I and II), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count III), and
Title VI (Count IV); as well as intentional interference with contract and prospective
economic advantage (Counts V and VI). The Court previously granted a motion to
dismiss by Defendants, holding that Counts I through III were time-barred. R. 43.
Monroe subsequently filed an amended complaint. R. 50. Defendants have moved to
dismiss Counts I through III of the Amended Complaint, arguing Monroe still has not
pleaded that his claims were timely filed. R. 52. For the following reasons,
Defendants’ motion is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the “sufficiency of the complaint.” Berger v.
Nat. Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 843 F.3d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 2016). A complaint must
provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), sufficient to provide defendant with “fair notice” of
the claim and the basis for it. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
This standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While “detailed
factual allegations” are not required, “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
The complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 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). “‘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.’” Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d
362, 366 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In applying this standard,
the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences
in favor of the non-moving party. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 646 (7th Cir. 2018).
BACKGROUND
Monroe was formerly a tenure-track assistant professor at Columbia in the
Film and Video Department. He alleges that he was the first and only black male
hired as a tenure-track professor in that department. R. 50 ¶ 2. Monroe alleges a
history of discrimination beginning from his first year at Columbia. He notes that his
concerns about bias in his students’ evaluations were ignored, and he was passed up
for promotions over white, less qualified individuals.
2
In late 2010, Sheridan, Monroe’s department chair, recommended Monroe’s
termination. Id. ¶ 40. Monroe filed a grievance with the Elected Representatives of
the College (“ERC”) and Sheridan’s recommendation was eventually reversed by
Columbia’s then president, President Carter. Id. ¶¶ 44-49. In reversing the proposed
dismissal, President Carter wrote: “My decision regarding your faculty status at
Columbia College Chicago is that your tenure-track appointment be continued for the
2011-2012 academic year.” Id. ¶ 49. The grievance allegedly resulted in retaliation by
Sheridan—Sheridan removed Monroe from teaching advanced and specialty courses
to teaching only foundational courses. Id. ¶ 50. Monroe resumed teaching advanced
courses at least in his final year of employment with Columbia. Id.
Sheridan also “engaged in hyper-surveillance” of Monroe’s activities and
threatened Monroe with “investigations” of minor infractions that never actually
materialized. Id. ¶ 51. Monroe alleges this behavior continued until the end of his
employment. Id. ¶¶ 50, 51.
Eventually, when Monroe was considered for tenure, his department “voted
overwhelmingly in favor of Monroe’s tenure,” but Sheridan issued a negative
recommendation. Id. ¶ 53. On March 18, 2013, the Provost denied Monroe tenure
because he “did not show strong evidence of excellence in teaching or professional
distinction in creative endeavors or scholarship.” Id. ¶ 54. Monroe filed a grievance
with the ERC and also filed a complaint of racial discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation against Sheridan with Columbia’s Office of Human Resources. Id. ¶ 5556. Both complaints were rejected. Id. Monroe then submitted materials for review of
3
the decision to Columbia’s incoming president, President Kim. President Kim ruled
against Monroe on August 12, 2013. Id. ¶ 59. Monroe alleges that based on his
previous experiences with Columbia, it is the president’s decision to retain or dismiss
a professor, and as a result, Monroe believed President Kim made the final decision
on tenure, and that earlier decisions by the Provost were merely recommendations.
Id. ¶ 60.
Monroe contested President Kim’s decision. He first wrote to the American
Association of University Professors. Id. ¶ 61. The Association wrote to President
Kim, stating that the decision to deny Monroe tenure after he had made a claim for
discrimination was grounds for a new hearing and that Columbia was in violation of
best academic practices. Id. President Kim responded that Columbia would treat the
statement as a “suggestion” and would consider it for future cases. Id. On September
12, 2013, about one month after President Kim’s decision to deny Monroe tenure,
Monroe filed a complaint of discrimination with the City of Chicago Commission on
Human Relations, alleging racial discrimination and workplace retaliation. Id. ¶ 62.
Monroe next filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on February 7, 2014. See R. 50-1. The EEOC
issued an inconclusive determination on May 12, 2017. Id. The EEOC did not indicate
the Charge was untimely filed. Id. Monroe filed this action on August 10, 2017.
DISCUSSION
On April 10, 2018, the Court dismissed Counts I through III of Monroe’s
complaint as time-barred. R. 43. The Court assumes general familiarity with that
4
decision. In that opinion, the Court held that the Provost’s decision on March 18, 2013
denying Monroe tenure, not President Kim’s decision, was the operative adverse
action for determining the statute of limitations period. The Court based that ruling
on Seventh Circuit precedent, Columbia’s policies on tenure, and the letters
referenced in the complaint in which President Kim stated his decision was solely
appellate. R. 43 at 5-9. Because the Court determined the operative adverse action
date was March 18, 2013, Monroe’s February 7, 2014 complaint with the EEOC was
filed 26 days beyond the 300-day limitations period under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1).
The Court also found that Monroe had not plausibly alleged that discrimination
against him continued through the end of his employment in May 2014 after he had
filed his EEOC complaint, and Monroe had not demonstrated that equitable
principles should toll the limitations period. For similar reasons, the Court found
Monroe had failed to timely bring his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, which has a four-year
statute of limitations period.
Monroe now argues his Title VII and Section 1981 claims are timely because
the discrimination against him continued through the termination of his employment
and because Defendants should be equitably estopped from arguing the statute of
limitations applies.
I.
Title VII Claim (Counts I and II)
A. Adverse Employment Action
Monroe first argues that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that he
suffered specific acts of discrimination through the date of his termination in May
5
2014. To be actionable, a discriminatory act must constitute an “adverse employment
action.” Stalter v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 195 F.3d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 1999). An adverse
employment action is one that results in a “significant change in employment status.”
Chaudhry v. Nucor Steel-Ind., 546 F.3d 832, 838 (7th Cir. 2008). “[N]ot everything
that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action. Otherwise, minor
and even trivial employment actions that ‘an irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee
did not like would form the basis of a discrimination suit.’” Smart v. Ball State Univ.,
89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir. 1996). Adverse employment actions typically fall into one
of three categories: “(1) termination or reduction in compensation, fringe benefits, or
other financial terms of employment; (2) transfers or changes in job duties that cause
an employee’s skills to atrophy and reduce future career prospects; and (3)
unbearable changes in job conditions, such as a hostile work environment or
conditions amounting to constructive discharge.” Barton v. Zimmer, Inc., 662 F.3d
448, 454-454 (7th Cir. 2011).
Here, Monroe alleges he was subjected to different terms and conditions of
employment because of his race and in retaliation for his complaints against
Sheridan. He argues that this conduct falls into the second category of adverse
employment actions—changes in job duties that cause an employee’s skills to atrophy
or reduce future career prospects. R. 55 at 5. Most of Monroe’s allegations occurred
well outside the 300-day limitations period required to bring his Title VII claim and
thus cannot be included as timely discrete acts. See R. 50 ¶¶ 50, 51.
6
Monroe makes conclusory allegations that some of the conduct continued
through the end of his employment—his amended allegations extend the relevant
dates of the conduct through May 2014 (“post-tenure decision conduct”). Specifically,
he alleges that he was forced to teach only introductory classes, “including during his
‘terminal year’ at Columbia in the fall 2013 and continuing in the Spring semester
through May 2014.” Id. ¶ 50. Monroe further alleges that Sheridan’s “hypersurveillance” of Monroe’s activities continued through May 2014. Id. ¶ 51. Neither of
these allegations plausibly allege an adverse employment action. With respect to both
allegations, Monroe’s own complaint shows they had no effect on his tenure decision.
As to his teaching introductory courses, Monroe alleges that in his “terminal year” he
taught two advanced courses, but these courses were too late to benefit his tenure
application. Id. ¶ 50. Likewise, he alleges the hyper-surveillance was reduced during
his terminal year and that Sheridan’s threats of investigations never actually
materialized. Id. ¶ 51. Nor does Monroe allege that his skills atrophied or that his
future career prospects were reduced because of that later conduct. Lucas v. Chi.
Transit Auth., 367 F.3d 714, 731 (7th Cir. 2004) (“There must be some tangible job
consequence accompanying the reprimand to rise to the level of a material adverse
employment action.”).
In any event, the conduct he complains of does not constitute adverse
employment actions. Monroe argues the changes in his job duties (restriction to
teaching introductory classes, failing to allow peer reviews of his classes, denying
interactions with community groups, denigrating his work to others) is sufficient to
7
meet the adverse employment action standard. But courts have held that similar
conduct is not actionable, particularly without allegations that the change had any
job consequences. See Peters v. Wal-Mart, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Ind. 2012),
aff’d sub nom. Peters v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 512 F. App’x 622 (7th Cir. 2013)
(allegations that defendants would not allow plaintiff to modify her schedule,
reprimanded her rudely, failed to train her on certain equipment, required her to take
a drug test, kept plaintiff under “close surveillance,” gave her a written coaching, and
gave her difficult work assignments were insufficient to establish an adverse
employment action as a matter of law); Lapka v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 974, 986 (7th
Cir.2008) (concluding that more difficult or time-consuming work assignments and
decreased performance ratings were not materially adverse employment actions
absent tangible job consequences); compare Alexander v. Casino Queen, 739 F.3d 972,
980 (7th Cir. 2014) (allegations that plaintiffs were moved from high-tipping areas on
the casino floor and disciplined more harshly than their white peers causing them to
lose hours or days of tips were sufficient because tips comprised 40% to 73% of the
plaintiffs’ compensation and as a result, the reduction represented a “significant”
change in benefits); Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007) (denial
of training experience through denial of overtime could constitute adverse
employment action because plaintiff lost overtime pay and because it denied her the
opportunity to police large public gatherings to advance her career and receive future
8
overtime). 1 In its previous opinion, the Court explained that Monroe plausibly alleged
an adverse employment action based on allegations that he was forced to teach
classes outside his specialty, which plausibly could have constituted a reduction in
benefits, a reduction in future career prospects, or created an unbearable change in
job conditions. R. 43 at 14. But in his Amended Complaint, Monroe pleads himself
out of plausibility by admitting he did teach advanced courses, and that teaching
some introductory courses in his terminal year did not affect his tenure prospects. R.
50 ¶ 50. Without allegations that the employment action had tangible job
consequences, Monroe does not plausibly allege an actionable adverse employment
action.
Here, the only detriment Monroe alleges is the denial of tenure. But the actions
that led to that denial necessarily occurred before he was denied tenure. Monroe fails
to allege any post-tenure decision conduct that had an adverse effect on his career
prospects. Accordingly, Monroe fails to plead any discrete adverse actions within the
limitations period.
B. Hostile Work Environment
Monroe criticizes Defendants for using cases decided on summary judgment in
support of their argument, but Monroe likewise uses summary judgment decisions in
support of his argument. See R. 55 at 6. On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 646 (7th Cir. 2018). The courts in the
cases on which both parties and the Court rely, found that the plaintiffs could not
show an adverse employment action as a matter of law and therefore are properly
considered on a motion to dismiss.
1
9
Monroe’s Title VII claim can survive if he alleges a hostile work environment
with at least one act falling within the 300-day period. Monroe fails to do so. Hostile
work environment claims involve “repeated conduct” that “may not be actionable on
its own.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115. Rather, “[s]uch claims are based on the cumulative
effect of individual acts.” Id. In contrast to discrete acts of discrimination, it does not
matter that “some of the component acts of the hostile work environment fall outside
the statutory time period. Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within
the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered
by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Id. at 117; see also Lucas, 367
F.3d at 724.
A hostile environment is one that is “permeated with discriminatory
intimidation, ridicule and insult.” Cooper-Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d 421,
426 (7th Cir. 2004). To state a Title VII hostile work environment claim, Monroe must
allege (1) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on
his race; (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of
employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment; and (4) there is
basis for employer liability. Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of
Cook Cty., 804 F.3d 826, 833-34 (7th Cir. 2015). “To rise to the level of a hostile work
environment, conduct must be sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the conditions
of employment such that it creates an abusive relationship.” Id. (emphasis in
original). In determining whether a workplace is objectively hostile, courts consider
the totality of the circumstances, including: “the frequency of the discriminatory
10
conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere
offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work
performance.” Alamo v. Bliss, 864 F.3d 541, 549-50 (7th Cir. 2017)
Monroe’s allegations do not plausibly support an abusive work environment.
Monroe alleges he was denied the opportunity to teach advanced courses, serve in
coordinator positions, hold administrative responsibilities, interact with community
groups, and to have his teaching assessed by peer reviews. R. 50 ¶ 67. Monroe also
alleges he was subject to hyper-surveillance and threatened with “investigations” of
minor infractions, but that those investigations never actually materialized. Id.
Although these incidents may have understandably frustrated Monroe, they do not
constitute harassment so severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment
and create an abusive working environment. Compare Huri, 804 F.3d at 834
(allegations of screaming, prayer circles, social shunning, implicit criticism of nonChristians, and uniquely bad treatment plausibly alleged a hostile work
environment); Alamo, 864 F.3d at 550-552 (allegations that coworkers used offensive
slurs, stole plaintiff’s food, and physically threatened him over a two-year period, as
well as allegations that he routinely complained to his supervisors of mistreatment
and that those supervisors did nothing to curb the ongoing harassment were
sufficient to survive motion to dismiss). Further, Monroe does not allege that the
conduct interfered with his work performance. See Alexander, 739 F.3d at 982 (work
environment that “was not physically threatening, nor was it openly racist, nor did it
unreasonably interfere with plaintiffs’ performance” was not a hostile work
11
environment). Instead, Monroe’s allegations indicate his performance was not
affected—he alleges Sheridan selectively quoted negative student evaluations while
ignoring “overall statistics and peer reviews that were positive,” R. 50 ¶ 51, and
falsely denigrated Monroe to professional colleagues, id. ¶ 52. Monroe has not
plausibly alleged a hostile work environment that interfered with his work
performance. See Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that a
supervisor’s alleged harassing conduct did not interfere with plaintiff’s ability to do
her job and therefore weighed against a finding of a hostile work environment).
C. Equitable Estoppel
Monroe next argues that the Court should apply equitable estoppel to allow his
claims to proceed because he timely asserted his rights, but mistakenly in the wrong
forum. R. 55 at 10. Monroe alleges he filed a complaint of discrimination with the City
of Chicago Commission on Human Relations alleging racial discrimination and
workplace retaliation within the 300-day limitations period. R. 50 ¶ 62. Monroe
concedes that his filing of that complaint is not sufficient to meet the limitations
period because the Commission is not a federally certified agency. See R. 55 at 11.
Nonetheless, he contends that Columbia is equitably estopped from arguing that his
subsequent filing with the EEOC was filed too late.
Simply mistaking the proper forum is not sufficient to warrant equitable
estoppel. As a case Monroe cites makes clear, extending the statute of limitations is
appropriate where the defendant “by deceptive conduct, caused the plaintiff’s
untimeliness.” Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1390 (3d
12
Cir. 1994). 2 Indeed, equitable estoppel requires allegations that Columbia “took
active steps to prevent [Monroe] from bringing [his] charge within the allotted time.”
See Williamson v. Indiana Univ., 345 F.3d 459, 463 (7th Cir. 2003); Hentosh v.
Herman M. Finch Univ. of Health Scis./The Chicago Med. Sch., 167 F.3d 1170, 1174
(7th Cir. 1999). Monroe makes no allegations that Columbia took active steps to cause
him to bring the case before the Commission on Human Rights rather than the
EEOC. 3
Monroe instead argues Columbia lulled him into believing that the president
was the final decision-maker as to tenure. As the Court explained in its first opinion,
allegations of equitable estoppel require “a deliberate design by the employer or . . .
actions that the employer should unmistakably have understood would cause the
employee to delay filing his charge.” Hedrich v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin
Sys., 274 F.3d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir. 2001). Monroe makes no such allegations. Instead,
the “lulling” Monroe alleges occurred years before the tenure decision: Monroe alleges
The other case Monroe cites for his argument is not on point. See Burnett v. New
York Cent. R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 429-34 (1965) (respondent could not rely on
limitations statute because it knew that the petitioner was actively pursuing his
rights in the state court and becuase to not toll the statute would create a “procedural
anomaly” regarding improper venue not intended by the Federal Employers’ Liability
Act).
2
To the extent Monroe argues equitable tolling is more appropriate, that argument
fails because there are no allegations Monroe “discovered” his injury at a later date.
See Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 451 (7th Cir. 1990) (Equitable
tolling “permits a plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations if despite all
due diligence he is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his
claim.”). Here, Monroe was aware of the discrimination claim at the time of the
Provost’s tenure denial. He alleges he filed a complaint of racial discrimination with
the Office of Human Resources soon after he was denied tenure. R. 50 ¶ 56.
3
13
President Carter reversed a recommendation to terminate his employment for the
2011-2012 academic year. R. 50 ¶ 49. If Monroe is arguing that this decision caused
him to believe President Kim’s denial was the final decision, this at most indicates
confusion by Monroe as to Columbia’s procedures on tenure—not a “deliberate
design” by Columbia to delay Monroe filing his Charge of Discrimination three years
later. Regardless, President Kim’s letter to Monroe in August 2013 clarified those
procedures. See R. 43 at 7 (noting that President Kim’s letter on August 12, 2013
stated: “my office received your written appeal in regards to the denial of tenure in
your case,” and after describing the procedures Monroe had already attempted,
stating “[k]nowing the importance of the tenure decision for a faculty member, I have
studied your entire case and appeal thoroughly and have considered at length each
of the ERC’s three findings. In the end, . . . I therefore affirm that denial of tenure in
your case will stand.”) (emphasis added in original opinion). 4
Further, Seventh Circuit case law forecloses any argument by Monroe that
having many channels of internal review constitutes active steps by an employer
warranting equitable estoppel. See Lever v. Northwestern University, 979 F.2d 552,
556 (7th Cir. 1992) (an internal review process was not a “snare[ ] for the unwary”
simply because the defendant university offered many channels of internal review
through which a professor could attempt to persuade school officials to change their
employment decisions); see also Lucas, 367 F.3d at 722 (“Our decisions clearly
Monroe attached President Kim’s letter to his response to Defendants’ initial motion
to dismiss. See R. 21-5. The Court relied on that letter in its opinion.
4
14
demonstrate that merely providing internal review, as in the present situation, is not
the type of active step that warrants the application of equitable estoppel.”).
In sum, Monroe fails to allege any deliberate action by Columbia warranting
equitable estoppel. As explained in the Court’s previous order, it is clear from
Columbia’s policies and the letter President Kim sent to Monroe that his decision on
tenure was merely one of appellate review. R. 43 at 7-8. Monroe does not plausibly
allege that he was deceived into his untimely filing. Monroe’s Title VII claims are
therefore dismissed with prejudice. 5
II.
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count III)
For the same reasons as explained above and in the Court’s previous order (R.
43 at 17-18), Monroe’s Section 1981 claim is also untimely. Lawsuits alleging
violations of Section 1981 must be filed within four years of the alleged violation. See
28 U.S.C. §1658(a). Monroe was denied tenure on March 18, 2013. He filed this action
on August 10, 2017. His claim is thus barred by the four-year statute. Monroe’s
Section 1981 claim is dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I through III,
R. 52, is granted.
Despite an opportunity to amend his claim, Monroe has failed to plead a plausible
claim for relief. A court need not grant leave to amend if it is clear that amendment
is futile. See Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago & Nw. Ind., 768 F.3d 510, 520
(7th Cir. 2015).
5
15
ENTERED:
Dated: August 27, 2018
--------------------------------------------Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
United States District Judge
16
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?