Baugh v. Robert Morris Univ.
| Decision Date | 20 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | CV16-430 |
| Parties | JEANNE BAUGH, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Pending before the court is the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Robert Morris University ("RMU") with respect to the first amended complaint ("amended complaint") filed by the plaintiff Jeanne Baugh ("Dr. Baugh"). (ECF No. 35). In the amended complaint, Dr. Baugh, a professor at RMU, alleges claims against RMU1 of 1) sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), 2) sex discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("Title IX"), 3) sex discrimination in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 951 et seq. ("PHRA"), 4) retaliation in violation of Title VII; 5) retaliation in violation of Title IX, 6) retaliation in violation of the PHRA, 7) hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, 8) hostile work environment in violation of Title IX, and 9) hostile work environment in violation of the PHRA.2 See First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 22).
RMU filed a brief in support of its motion (ECF No. 36), a concise statement of material facts (ECF No. 37), an appendix of record evidence (ECF No. 38), a reply brief in support of its motion (ECF No. 53), a reply statement of undisputed material facts (ECF No. 54), and a supplement to its appendix (ECF No. 55). In response to RMU's motion, Dr. Baugh filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 48), a response to RMU's statement of facts (ECF No. 50), a response to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44), an appendix to the response in opposition (ECF No. 56), and a surreply to RMU's reply statement of undisputed material facts (ECF No. 62). Together the parties filed a combined concise statement of material facts (ECF No. 59).
This matter is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. As more fully explained below, RMU's motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The parties must support their respective positions by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). In other words, summary judgment may be granted only if there exists no genuine issue of material fact that would permit a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
In reviewing the evidence, the court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000);Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986); Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prod. Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). It is not the court's role to weigh the disputed evidence and decide which is more probative, or to make credibility determinations. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004); Boyle v. County of Allegheny, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. An issue is "genuine" if a reasonable jury could possibly hold in the nonmovant's favor with respect to that issue. See id. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Huston, 568 F.3d at 104.
RMU is a nonprofit academic institution located in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 59 at 1, RMU's SOF 1). Dr. Baugh accepted an appointment as an associate professor in RMU's Computer Information Systems ("CIS") Department on January 27, 2001. (Id. at 3; RMU's SOF 9). On May 5, 2006, Dr. Baugh was promoted to the rank of professor. (Id.at 3, RMU's SOF 10). In 2013, Professor John Turchek ("Professor Turchek"), the CIS Department head, recommended Dr. Baugh for promotion to the rank of university professor, RMU's highest faculty rank, noting: "[b]ased on Professor Baugh's continued record of exemplary performance in the areas of scholarship, teaching and service ... I strongly recommend Professor Baugh for promotion to University Professor." (ECF No. 38-4, Ex. D at 112). On April 29, 2013, Dr.Baugh was promoted to the rank of university professor, based in part on "positive recommendations from your ... department head [Professor Turchek]." (Id. at 113). Professor Turchek also recommended Dr. Baugh for merit increases every year since he became the department head. (ECF No. 38-3, Ex. C at 46).
RMU is a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with the Robert Morris University Faculty Federation, Local 3412, AFT, AFL-CIO ("Federation"), a labor union which represents RMU's full-time faculty members. (ECF No. 59 at 2, RMU's SOF 3). As a full-time faculty member, Dr. Baugh is a member of the Federation bargaining unit. (ECF No. 38-3, Ex. C at 32). The CBA contains a grievance procedure, which contains four steps and culminates in arbitration. (ECF No. 59 at 2, RMU's SOF 4). Grievances only adjudicate potential violations of the CBA. (ECF No. 48-3 at App. H00007).
Professor Turchek has been the CIS Department head since May 2011. (ECF No. 59 at 2, RMU's SOF 5). As department head, Professor Turchek is responsible for making recommendations concerning the hiring and promotion of faculty members, scheduling courses, assigning faculty members to their "regular load" of courses, and making recommendations concerning merit raises for faculty members.4 (Id. at 2, RMU's SOF 6).
At the time Professor Turchek became the department head of RMU's CIS Department there were three to five female professors in the department. (Doc. 38-5, Ex. E at 114). Currentlythere are approximately ten female professors in the department. (ECF No. 59 at 22, RMU's SOF 83).
At RMU, a "regular load" consists of twelve academic credits per semester. (Id. at 4, RMU's SOF 16). Any course taught in addition to a professor's regular load is called an overload course. Additional compensation is paid for teaching an overload course. (ECF No. 48-2 at App. C00008). Dr. Baugh teaches both undergraduate and graduate level JAVA courses at RMU and has done so for many years. (ECF Nos. 38-5 at Ex. E at 6; 48-2 at App. C00013). Dr. Baugh is qualified to teach graduate level computer programming courses based upon her education and experience. (ECF No. 59 at 30, Baugh's SOF108).
For the fall 2013 academic semester, Professor Turchek scheduled a graduate level JAVA course, INFS6151, (the "INFS6151 Course") to be taught "on-ground" at RMU's Pittsburgh Center location, located in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Wednesday evenings. (ECF No. 59 at 5, RMU's SOF 17). "On-ground" means the course is being taught in person. (Id. at 5, RMU's SOF 18). Prior to the fall 2013 academic semester, Dr. Baugh had taught the INFS6151 Course at RMU for nine years. (Id. at 5, RMU's SOF 19).
Professor Turchek decided that the fall 2013 semester INFS6151 Course would be taught using the IBM Enterprise Mainframe ("Mainframe") system, because members of the computer and information systems business community in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including Highmark, U.S. Steel, UPMC, Bank of New York, and PNC, had advised him that they used the JAVA application on the Mainframe system. (ECF No. 38-5, Ex. E at 23). Professor Turchek discussed the change in the INFS6151 Course with a few professors in the CIS Department, but not with Dr. Baugh or any other female faculty member. (ECF No. 48-4 at App. J00005).
On June 5, 2013, in order to facilitate CIS Department faculty members learning and gaining experience with the Mainframe system, Professor Turchek invited all department faculty members, including Dr. Baugh, to attend a training session at Fairmont State University ("Fairmont State"), in Fairmont, West Virginia, on July 9-12, 2012. (ECF No. 59 at 6, RMU's SOF 21). Professor Turchek sent an email to all CIS Department professors, including Dr. Baugh, telling them that "IBM will be providing some mainframe training July 9-12 in Fairmont, WVA" and to let him know if they wanted to attend the training and which days they wanted to attend. (ECF No. 38-4, Ex. D, at 115-116). Topics included: "Rational Developer for COBOL, JAVA, and other programming languages." (Id. at 116). Dr. Baugh chose not to attend the training. (ECF No. 38-3, Ex. C at 67-68). Professor Turchek did not tell Dr. Baugh that if she did not attend the conference at Fairmont State, she would be precluded from teaching the INFS6151 Course in the fall 2013 semester. (ECF No. 48-4 at App. J00014).
RMU Professor Patrick Laverty ("Dr. Laverty") attended the training session at Fairmont State. (ECF No. 59 at 6, RMU's SOF 22). He reported that the training did not involve JAVA; rather, the training involved COBOL. (Id.; ECF Nos. 48-2 at App. E00018; 48-3 at App. F00005). Dr. Laverty had prior experience using the Mainframe system and according to Professor Turchek, was "one of our lead people for teaching things on the mainframe." (ECF No. 59 at 6, RMU's SOF 23). RMU Professor Paul Kovacs ("Dr. Kovacs") also attended the training session at Fairmont State. (ECF No. 48-2 at App. E00018). Dr. Kovacs...
To continue reading
Request your trial