Barefield v. Board of Trustees of Ca State Univ.
| Decision Date | 01 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-F-05-00633 AWI/TAG.,CV-F-05-00633 AWI/TAG. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | Lashawn BAREFIELD, Plaintiff, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD, Jim George, Diane Hendrickson, Mark Murie, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. |
Waukeen Q. McCoy, Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Charles Trudrung Taylor, Kirsten O'Brien Zumwalt, Lang, Richert & Patch, Fresno, CA, for Defendants.
This case comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication. Plaintiff Lashawn Barefield ("Barefield"), an African American female, has sued her employer and various individuals alleging racial discrimination under federal and state law, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress relating to the university's failure to promote her to a position as director of student activities. Defendants are The Board of Trustees of the California State University, Bakersfield ("CSUB"); James H. George (sued as "Jim George") ("George"), Diane Hendrickson ("Hendrickson"), and Mark Murie ("Murie"). This Court denies in part and grants in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The following facts are presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the nonmoving party.
Plaintiff has been employed with CSUB since January 2001 as a tenure-track counselor in the university's counseling center. On August 19, 2003, CSUB posted an opening for the position of director of student activities, Position 891. Barefield, who holds a master's degree and chaired a university committee related to students and substance abuse, applied for the position. Plaintiff received the support of her supervisor Diane Hendrickson, who told her she was a "shoe in" for the position and that she was certain to get an interview because Barefield was "more than qualified." After Plaintiff submitted her application, Hendrickson approached Plaintiff after a managers' committee meeting where the director of student activities position was discussed, and told Plaintiff that she would be one of the candidates for an interview and that she should get ready for her interview.
Plaintiff, however, was not given an interview. Mark Murie, an employee in CSUB's human resources department, initially reviewed the applications for Position 891 and recommended an applicant pool of the applicants he determined were the five most qualified candidates to be interviewed. These candidates were invited to interview. Joseph Lowder ("Lowder"), CSUB's first choice candidate and a non-African American, received a second interview. On December 4, 2003, CSUB sent a letter to Lowder informing him that due to the current budget situation the university was postponing filling the position, but that he would be placed on an eligibility list as the top candidate. On December 9, 2003, Barefield received a letter informing her she was not being considered for Position 891. When Plaintiff was not considered for an interview, she spoke with Brian McNamara, the representative of the California Faculty Association regarding filing a discrimination grievance. Plaintiff claims to have filed a grievance in January 2004, and then a second grievance in February 2004.
In June 2004, CSUB hired an existing CSUB employee, Marina Avalos-Kegley ("Kegley"), a non-African American female who was in the process of obtaining her master's degree, as interim director of student activities. Although the university claimed that Position 891 was cancelled due to lack of funding, it hired Kegley as interim director of student activities before it cancelled recruitment for Position 891. According to Plaintiff, CSUB improperly reclassified and awarded Kegley the interim director of student activities position, even though the requirements for Position 891 and the interim position were the same, in order not to give the position to Plaintiff. Barefield alleges that CSUB racially discriminated against her by failing to promote her to the director of student activities position because she was passed over in favor of a less-qualified, non-African-American candidate. Plaintiff alleges she is more qualified than Kegley for the position. Kegley completed her master's degree in 2004 and did not have the same work experience as Plaintiff. Kegley had not applied for Position 891 at the time it was posted or previously expressed interest. When a permanent director of student activities position was reposted as Position 1010 in April 2005, Kegley was ultimately hired as the permanent director. Plaintiff did not apply for Position 1010.
Plaintiff also claims that CSUB and the individual defendants retaliated against her after she filed her discrimination grievances, a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November 2004 and her Complaint filed in May 2005 instituting this action. Plaintiff claims Kegley's reclassification was retaliatory. A holiday credit was withheld from Plaintiffs paycheck. When the permanent director of student activities position was posted as Position 1010, Plaintiff claims that Murie changed the qualification requirements to exclude Plaintiff, even though there were no substantive changes in duties between Position 891 and Position 1010. Plaintiff also maintains that James H. George, CSUB provost and vice president for academic affairs, gave her a negative performance evaluation during her annual review. According to Plaintiff, she had received positive evaluations before her discrimination complaints. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Hendrickson excluded her from a department meeting where Hendrickson informed the counseling department that they were required to attend a ball to celebrate CSUB's 35th Anniversary and to inaugurate CSUB's new president. By the time Plaintiff found out that her colleagues in the counseling department were attending as a department, Plaintiff was unable to purchase a ticket. As a result of the denial of the promotion and the retaliatory acts, Barefield alleges she has suffered emotional and physical harm for which she is receiving medical care.
Plaintiff filed her complaint against CSUB on May 10, 2005. The complaint was addressed to the Superior Court of California, County of Kern but was filed in the United States District Court in Fresno. The complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code § 12940, et seq. ("FEHA"), breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on July 21, 2005 that was identical to her initial complaint, only addressed to the United States District Court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Barefield's § 1981 claims and contract claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). Defendant also sought dismissal of the entire suit for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) on the assumption that the § 1981 claims would be dismissed. Alternatively, the motion sought to strike Barefield's request for punitive damages under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f). Barefield opposed the motion in its entirety. While the matter was under submission, Barefield filed a motion to amend the FAC under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15, which was granted by the magistrate judge.
Barefield filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on November 17, 2005, which added a claim for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). The SAC mooted Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion since federal subject matter jurisdiction would remain regardless of dismissal of Barefield's § 1981 claim. Defendant moved again to dismiss various claims in the SAC and to strike Barefield's punitive damages claims. This Court granted Defendant's motion and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's § 1981 claims and contract claims, as well as Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages. The remaining causes of action were discrimination under FEHA and Title VII, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint ("TAC") on June 5, 2006, adding a claim for retaliation under FE HA, California Government Code § 12900, et seq. The TAC also added individual defendants James H. George, Diane Hendrickson, and Mark Murie. The TAC is the operative complaint.
On April 20, 2007, Defendants moved for summary judgement or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication on all claims. Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition, but the Court granted Plaintiffs ex party motion to amend the briefing schedule on May 22, 2007. Plaintiff filed her opposition on May 25, 2007. Defendants filed a reply on June 4, 2007. The Court took the matter under submission on June 11, 2007.
The parties do not dispute the following facts:
1. Plaintiff applied for Position No. 891.
2. Murie initially reviewed the applications for Position 891 and recommended an applicant pool of the applicants he determined were the five most qualified candidates to be interviewed.
3. Hendrickson was not on the selection committee for Position 891.
4. George was the provost at the time Plaintiff applied for Position 891.
5. Plaintiff did not apply for Position 1010.
6. George recommended Plaintiff for another probationary year, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Venter v. Potter
...submitted by a plaintiff cannot defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant. Barefield v. Bd. of Trs., 500 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1264 (E.D.Cal.2007) ("`Mere conclusory assertions of discriminatory intent, embodied in affidavits or deposition testimony, cannot be......
-
Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Servs., Inc.
...claim" in a failure to promote case]; Barefield v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University, Bakersfield (E.D.Cal. 2007) 500 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1261 [elimination of a position for budgetary reasons does not defeat prima facie case of unlawful failure to promote if "some vacancy exist[ed] at ......
-
Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Servs., Inc.
...can potentially form the basis of a discrimination claim" in a failure to promote case]; Barefield v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University, Bakersfield (E.D.Cal. 2007) 500 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1261 [elimination of a position for budgetary reasons does not defeat prima facie case of unlawfu......
-
Day v. Sears Holdings Corp., Case No. CV 11–09068 MMM (PJWx).
...protected activities under FEHA: (1) filing an administrative complaint or grievance, see Barefield v. Board of Trustees of CA State University, Bakersfield, 500 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1253 (E.D.Cal.2007) (discrimination grievance filed with the California Faculty Association); McRae v. Department......
-
Best Evidence Rule
...to prove the actual contents of those written agreements. Barefield v. Board of Trustees of CA State University, Bakersfield , 500 F.Supp.2d 1244 (E.D.Cal., 2007). The best evidence rule requires that to prove the content of a writing the original is required. Matter of the Estate of Saxton......
-
Best Evidence Rule
...to prove the actual contents of those written agreements. Barefield v. Board of Trustees of CA State University, Bakersfield , 500 F.Supp.2d 1244 (E.D.Cal., 2007). The best evidence rule requires that to prove the content of a writing the original is required. Matter of the Estate of Saxton......
-
Best Evidence Rule
...to prove the actual contents of those written agreements. Barefield v. Board of Trustees of CA State University, Bakersfield , 500 F.Supp.2d 1244 (E.D.Cal., 2007). The best evidence rule requires that to prove the content of a writing the original is required. Matter of the Estate of Saxton......
-
Table of Cases
...862 N.E.2d 1152, 308 Ill.Dec. 949 (2007), §§6.800, 44.300, 44.301 Barefield v. Board of Trustees of CA State University, Bakersfield , 500 F.Supp.2d 1244 (E.D.Cal., 2007), §2:200 Barkett v. Gomez , 908 So.2d 1084 (Fla.App. 2005), §44.301 Barlow v. Connecticut, 319 F.Supp.2d 250 (D. Conn., 2......