Brown v. Fla. Gulf Coast Univ. Bd. of Trs., Case No: 2:18-cv-157-FtM-29MRM
| Decision Date | 14 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:18-cv-157-FtM-29MRM |
| Parties | L YVONNE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, KEN KAVANAGH, individually and in official capacity, KARL SMESKO, individually and in official capacity, RODERICK ROLLE, individually and in official capacity, and KELLY BROCK, individually and in official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. #51) filed on October 12, 2018. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #65) on November 1, 2018. Also before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing and Expedited Discovery (Doc. #18). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and denies as moot plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing and Expedited Discovery.
This case arises out of Plaintiff L. Yvonne Brown's (Plaintiff) dismissal from the Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) women's basketball team. According to the Amended Complaint (Doc. #43): In the fall of 2017, Plaintiff enrolled at FGCU and was a member of the FGCU women's basketball team. (Id. ¶ 8.) During the spring 2018 semester at FGCU, Plaintiff was a student in a Biology II lab class taught by Professor Roderick Rolle (Defendant Rolle). (Id.) As was customary in the class, Defendant Rolle assigned Plaintiff a lab partner with whom she collaborated on lab assignments. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 22.) Soon thereafter, Plaintiff's relationship with Defendant Rolle "took a dramatic turn for the worse . . . ." (Id. ¶ 9.)
On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff approached Defendant Rolle and asked him if there was anything she and her lab partner could do to make up for a low grade they received on a previous assignment. (Id. ¶ 35.) Defendant Rolle responded by informing Plaintiff that it would "be impossible for her, as a woman, to pass his lab class and play basketball [because] basketball and his . . . class 'do not coincide.'" (Id.) Defendant Rolle further stated that, because he believed Plaintiff was negatively affecting her partner's performance in class, he intended to partner Plaintiff with a student who had never attended class. (Id.) Plaintiff rejected that arrangement and "strongly rebuked Rolle for saying she couldn't pass his class and play basketball and for implying that [Plaintiff] was the reason for the low grade . . . as opposed to [Plaintiff's] lab partner . . . ." (Id.) Defendant Rolle then told Plaintiff that he was not going to give Plaintiff credit for assignments she completed if she was not "physically present in his class for his instruction given on that particular [] assignment." (Id.)
On January 29, 2018, after her dispute with Defendant Rolle, Plaintiff met with Dr. Clifford Renk, the Chair of the Biology Department at FGCU, and "complained about the treatment she had just received" in Defendant Rolle's class. (Id. ¶ 36.) From January 30, 2018 through February 1, 2018, Defendant Rolle changed the grade of an assignment Plaintiff completed when she was not present in class for Defendant Rolle's instructions: Defendant Rolle changed the grade on lab assignment #2 from 100% to 0%, and then from 0% to "No Grade."1 (Id. ¶¶ 32, 44, 45.) On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff asked Defendant Rolle how she could complete two assignments (lab assignments #4 and #5) because "these assignments became due while [Plaintiff] was in the midst of a road trip with the FGCU women's basketball team. . . ." (Id. ¶ 51.) Defendant Rolle then "walked away without answering [Plaintiff]." (Id.)
On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff "was forced to submit her grades to" Kelly Brock (Defendant Brock), the Assistant Athletic Director at FGCU. (Id. ¶ 52.) On February 7, 2018, Karl Smesko (Defendant Smesko), the head-coach of the FGCU women's basketball team, informed Plaintiff that she "was being suspended immediately" from the women's basketball team because of her "'poor academic performance. . . .'" (Id. ¶ 54.)
On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff emailed Defendant Rolle her completed submissions for lab assignments #4 and #5, which Defendant Rolle previously "refused" to instruct Plaintiff on how to complete them "under [the] FGCU Authorized Absence Policy" when he "walked away without answering [Plaintiff's]" question on February 5, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 51, 55.) On February 11, 2018, Defendant Rolle responded to Plaintiff's email, stating that he would not give Plaintiff any credit for the late assignments because she could have completed them before her athletic event and did not "'have to wait until the last day, and at the last hour,'" to turn them in. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiff received grades of 0% on lab assignments #4 and #5. (Id.)
On February 14, 2018, Defendant Smesko informed Plaintiff that she was being dismissed from the women's basketball team because her grades "had not improved since the suspension . . . and 'because he had received some additional emails about th[e] situation with [Defendant] Rolle since February 7, 2018.'" (Id. ¶ 58.) On February 15, 2018, Defendant Brock informed Plaintiff that she "would no longer have access to the Athletic Academic Training Center" because she was dismissed from the women's basketball team. (Id. ¶ 60.) On February 16, 2018, Plaintiff sent Defendant Smesko an "Apology Letter" and requested that Defendant Smesko reinstate Plaintiff to the women's basketball team; Defendant Smesko denied Plaintiff's request. (Id. ¶¶ 61, 63.) Plaintiff then requested that Ken Kavanagh (Defendant Kavanagh), the FGCU Athletic Director, reinstate Plaintiff to the women's basketball team; Defendant Kavanagh also denied her request. (Id. ¶ 62.)
On February 22, 2018, Defendant Kavanagh informed Plaintiff "that he upheld [Defendant] Smesko's decision to dismiss [Plaintiff] from the FGCU women's basketball team." (Id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiff then informed Defendant Kavanagh that he had "skipped a step in the appeal process and made a final determination, as athletic director, before allowing [Plaintiff] to appeal [Defendant] Smesko's decision to the Sport Coordinator." (Id. ¶ 69.) On February 27, 2018, Defendant Kavanagh informed Plaintiff that he "was the Sport Coordinator for FGCU women's basketball and that he, as Sport Coordinator, was also denying [Plaintiff's] appeal seeking reinstatement to the FGCU women's basketball team." (Id. ¶ 72.) This lawsuit followed.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This obligation "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). To survive dismissal, the factual allegations must be "plausible" and "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555. See also Edwards v. Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). This requires "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), but "[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth," Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability fall short of being facially plausible." Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Thus, the Court engages in a two-step approach: "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
A pleading drafted by a party proceeding pro se, like the Amended Complaint at issue here, is held to a less stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney, and the Court will construe the allegations contained therein liberally. Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015). Nevertheless, "a pro se pleading must suggest (even if inartfully) that there is at least some factual support for a claim; it is not enough just to invoke a legal theory devoid of any factual basis." Id. Put simply, even a pro se complaint must set forth claims the Court has the power to resolve and allege facts showing that each cause of action is facially plausible.
The Amended Complaint asserts seven claims against the FGCU Board of Trustees (the FGCUBOT) and Defendants Kavanagh, Smesko, Rolle, and Brock in their official and individual capacities for violation of Plaintiff's procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I), violation of Plaintiff's equal protection rights under Section 1983 (Count II), hostile educational environment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (Count III), retaliation in violation of Title IX (Count IV), breach of contract (Count V), specific performance (Count VI), and injunctive relief (Count VII).2
Defendants now move to dismiss all Counts in the Amended Complaint. Defendants argue the entire Amended Complaint should be dismissed because (1) Plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign immunity; and (2) the Amended Complaint otherwise fails to state a legally sufficient cause of action.3 The sovereign immunity analysis differs depending on whether the claim at issue is...
To continue reading
Request your trial