Cyprian v. Auburn Univ. Montgomery

• Decision Date: 01 July 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:10–cv–226–MEF.
• Citation: 274 Ed. Law Rep. 177,799 F.Supp.2d 1262
• Parties: Alecia T. CYPRIAN, Plaintiff, v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

274 Ed. Law Rep. 177

799 F.Supp.2d 1262

Alecia T. CYPRIAN, Plaintiff,

v.AUBURN UNIVERSITY MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:10–cv–226–MEF.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

July 1, 2011.

Jamie Austin Johnston, Frank Moseley Wilson, Frank M. Wilson, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.

David R. Boyd, Jordan Dorman Walker, Jr., Kelly Fitzgerald Pate, Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, AL, Lee Ford Armstrong, Auburn University, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARK E. FULLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This cause is currently before the Court on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. # 40), and the Defendants' motion to strike some of the evidence offered by the Plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, (Doc. # 51). The Plaintiff, Dr. Alecia T. Cyprian (Cyprian), brings this suit against her former employer, Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM), and her former supervisor, Dr. Katherine Jackson (Jackson), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Cyprian claims that she suffered racial discrimination, was subjected to a racially hostile work environment, and was ultimately dismissed from her job at AUM because she complained about racial discrimination at work. Because the Court finds that Cyprian has not established a genuine issue of material fact in any of her claims, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED. The Defendants' motion to strike is due to be DENIED as moot.

II. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue and the Court finds adequate allegations of both.

III. Factual and Procedural Background¹

Defendant AUM is a publicly-funded state university located in Montgomery, Alabama. Chancellor John Veres directs AUM with the assistance of several vice chancellors. Cyprian joined AUM on April 2, 2007 as the Dean of Student Affairs.² Cyprian worked as the Dean of Student Affairs until AUM terminated her employment on June 3, 2009. Cyprian is an African–American woman.

Defendant Jackson is AUM's Vice Chancellor for Outreach—a program that extends the resources of AUM to entities outside of the university.³ (Doc. # 42 at 25). On July 1, 2008, Jackson became Cyprian's immediate supervisor. It was under Jackson's supervision that Cyprian claims she was subject to racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation.

As Cyprian's supervisor, Jackson met with her once a week or once every other week. Cyprian was required to meet with Jackson more frequently than was required of the white employees Jackson supervised. (Doc. # 38 at 3). During these meetings, Cyprian reported on the ongoing activities of the Division of Student Affairs and other related matters. Cyprian felt that Jackson used these meetings to intimidate, pressure, criticize, and humiliate her. (Doc. # 38 at 3). Cyprian also felt that Jackson required Cyprian to complete unreasonable tasks and participate in meetings and other assignments that were not required of white employees. (Doc. # 38 at 4). Cyprian first complained about a hostile work environment in the fall of 2008.⁴

As Dean of Student Affairs, Cyprian supervised AUM's police chief, Nell Robinson. One of Cyprian's supervisory responsibilities was to review the police department's annual performance evaluations completed by Robinson. In January 2009, Robinson gave Cyprian the individual performance reviews for the police department employees, which the employees had signed. During her review of the evaluations, Cyprian encountered several errors and returned the evaluations to Robinson for correction. To meet Jackson's deadline for submitting the reviews, Robinson corrected the evaluations and Cyprian and her staff retyped the evaluations to include the corrections. The police employees did not see or sign their revised evaluations. Cyprian delivered the corrected evaluations to Jackson who then reviewed the evaluations and determined that they had not been prepared properly. (Doc. # 42 at 6). Jackson discovered that the evaluations contained internal inconsistencies and performance ratings that did not have the proper justifications. At least one evaluation incorrectly tallied the score for the employee's numerical rating. (Doc. # 42 at 7). These errors caused Jackson to suspect that there had been a violation of AUM policy in preparing the evaluations.

In early February, Jackson and Jeanine Boddie–LaVan, a part-time human resources consultant at AUM, decided that AUM should conduct an investigation into the suspected violation of AUM policy. The investigatory team consisted of three African–American women.⁵ The team concluded that Cyprian violated a provision of the AUM Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, which forbids making unauthorized changes to documents. (Doc. # 47–20 at 2). In the AUM manual, this is a Group I violation—the most serious kind—and can be punished by immediate termination. (Doc. # 42 at 10). Instead of termination, the investigatory team recommended that Cyprian receive a final written warning. ( Id. at 11). Cyprian later objected to parts of the investigatory report, and after further review, Cyprian received a formal written reprimand—a lesser form of discipline. ( Id. at 10).

In February 2009, Jackson gave Cyprian a “below expectations” performance review for her work in 2008. ( Id. at 13). Jackson stated that one reason for this review was that Cyprian did not produce evidence that she had indeed accomplished the annual goals set out in her January 2008 performance planning worksheet. ( Id.). Jackson stated that another reason for this review was that Cyprian had difficulty working cooperatively with other people. (Doc. # 42, 14). Jackson provided nine examples to support this statement. On February 5, 2009, Cyprian met with Jackson and Veres to discuss Cyprian's annual evaluation. Cyprian refused to sign the evaluation at the end of the meeting. After the evaluation, Cyprian was placed on a performance improvement plan.

Cyprian took a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave of absence from February 25, 2009 until March 16, 2009. Cyprian cited the hostility of her working environment as the reason for taking this leave. (Doc. # 38 at 4; Doc. # 46 at 14).

On March 5, 2009, Cyprian sent Jackson two different letters. In the first letter, Cyprian responded to her “below expectations” rating on her annual evaluation. (Doc. # 47–54). Cyprian's letter addresses what she believed to be inaccuracies in her annual performance review. The letter disputes many of the assertions in the review and provides details regarding several disagreements involving Cyprian, Jackson, and other staff at AUM. A portion of the letter states that Cyprian “[does not] want to create a hostile work environment for anyone, and will not have one created for [her].” (Doc. # 47–54 at 7).

In her second letter, Cyprian complained to Jackson about racial hostilities in the workplace. (Doc. # 47–17). This letter begins by stating: “Please allow this letter to serve as notification that based on my race, African American, I perceive that you create a racially intimidating hostile work environment for me.” (Doc. # 47–17). Cyprian's letter describes several situations in which Cyprian perceived that Jackson believed “what was told to [her] by White employees and have on every occasion dismissed my comments.” (Doc. # 47–17).

AUM retained Christine Sims, an outside human resources consultant, to investigate Cyprian's allegations of race discrimination. (Doc. # 42 at 16). In her April 3, 2009 report on the investigation, Sims indicated that she had reviewed Cyprian's claims that she was being evaluated differently than white employees and that Jackson had inappropriately influenced the campus police investigation. (Doc. # 41–2 at 49). Sims found that there was no evidence that Jackson had directed or influenced the investigation into the altered campus police evaluations. Sims concluded her report by stating that “[b]ased on the information reviewed during the investigation, the allegation that Dr. Katherine Jackson has created a racially hostile work environment for Dr. Alecia Cyprian was not substantiated.” ( Id. at 51). On April 29, 2009, Veres delivered Sims's conclusion to Cyprian, indicated that he considered the matter closed, and urged Cyprian to address the deficiencies in her “below expectations” review. (Doc. # 41–2 at 159).

Unrelated to Cyprian's claims of racial discrimination, in March 2009 Veres hired Dr. Ron Sims, an organizational behavior professor at the College of William & Mary, to conduct an organizational analysis of AUM. Dr. Sims is African American. Dr. Sims delivered a report of his organizational analysis on March 11, 2009. The report made 15 recommendations for improving the operations of Cyprian's Division of Student Affairs—more than twice the amount of recommendations he made for improving any other AUM division. ( Id. at 20). In the course of his organizational analysis, Dr. Sims communicated with Cyprian and learned about Cyprian's claims of a hostile work environment. Dr. Sims's report concluded that Cyprian was sometimes difficult to interact with and that a plan should be implemented to develop her leadership skills. Based on this recommendation, Veres assigned Timothy Spraggins, AUM's Assistant Vice Chancellor for Diversity, to be Cyprian's mentor. Spraggins is African American.

On June 2, 2009, Dr. Sims returned to AUM to participate in a leadership retreat for senior AUM administrators and to review his recommendations from his March 2009 organizational analysis. (Doc. # 42 at 21). During the retreat, Dr. Sims observed Cyprian engaging in behavior he described as negative, offensive, arrogant, uncooperative, defensive, and sharp. ( Id. at 22).

On June 3, 2009...