Dixon v. State ex rel. Reg'l Univ. Sys. of the Okla. Bd. of Regents

• Decision Date: 29 March 2023
• Docket Number: CIV-19-391-GLJ
• Parties: MARCI D. WALKINGSTICK DIXON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents d/b/a/ Northeastern State University, and RICHARD REIF, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma

1

MARCI D. WALKINGSTICK DIXON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents d/b/a/ Northeastern State University, and RICHARD REIF, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

No. CIV-19-391-GLJ

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

March 29, 2023

ORDER

GERALD L. JACKSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on motions for summary judgment by the Defendants in this case, the State of Oklahoma ex rel the Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents d/b/a Northeastern State University (“NSU”), and Dr. Richard Reif, sued in his individual capacity. Plaintiff alleges claims of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act as to Defendant NSU, and a retaliation claim pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as to Defendant Reif. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant Northeastern State University's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 114] should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Defendant [Richard Reif's] Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 115] should be GRANTED.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed her original Complaint in this case on November 15 2019, then filed an Amended Complaint on February 4, 2020 [Docket Nos. 2, 13].^[1] Plaintiff's Count I appears to allege claims of gender discrimination, race discrimination retaliation, and hostile work environment as to NSU, in violation of Title VII; Count II asserts claims against NSU for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; and the remaining portion^[2] of Count III is a claim against Dr. Reif for retaliation for use of FMLA leave. Defendants filed their motions for summary judgment on January 30, 2023 [Docket Nos. 114, 115], and they are now ripe. NSU alleges that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law and that NSU had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing her.

Defendant Reif alleges that he does not meet the definition of employer under the FMLA, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and NSU had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing her. Additionally, he asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Law Applicable

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that “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). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The moving party must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), with the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). However, “a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a Native American female. Docket No. 114, p. 11, ¶ 8. The undisputed facts reflect that Plaintiff worked in NSU's Information Technology Services (“ITS”) Department beginning in September 2013, specifically in the Enterprise Systems unit of the ITS Department. Id., p. 10, ¶¶ 1-3. Dr. Reif became her supervisor in 2015 when he was named Chief Information Officer (“CIO”). Id., ¶¶ 4-5. Dr. Reif and Plaintiff met regularly, and Plaintiff (and her department) had weekly meetings with the ITS Infrastructure Department. Id., ¶¶ 6-7. As part of Plaintiff's interactions with Dr. Reif, he once made two comments in the same conversation, using the terms “warpath” and “powwow,” but he never made specific negative comments to her about being Native American. However, he asked about the origins of the “Walkingstick” name upon meeting her, which Plaintiff interpreted as Dr. Reif questioning her heritage. Id., p. 11, ¶¶ 10-12; Docket No. 119, p. 7, ¶ 12. Additionally, Dr. Reif used the word “d**k” in one conversation. Docket No. 114, p.11, ¶ 14. Plaintiff never spoke to Dr. Reif about his use of any of those words, but did make a report in January 2018 to NSU's Title IX officer about his language and language used by others in the ITS Department. Id., ¶¶ 13, 15, 17. After this report, the language in the department improved overall. Id., p. 12, ¶ 18.

Dr. Reif once asked Plaintiff if he could use her meeting notes as minutes and, when she refused, he later invited an assistant to join the meetings to take minutes. Id., ¶ 19. Plaintiff says she declined his request of her notes for minutes because he often assigned women to “gender-stereotypical jobs.” Docket No. 119, p. 7, ¶¶ 19-20. Dr. Reif also asked a female IT employee to be in charge of throwing a party, but did not specifically ask Plaintiff to do so. The ITS department eventually created a sign-up sheet to help with party planning. Id., ¶ 20.

On May 4, 2018, Dr. Reif emailed Plaintiff an official reprimand, noting that she had filled out a leave report but did not use vacation or personal days for two days when she had called in sick. The email reminded her that “exempt employees do not get comp time.” Docket No. 114, p. 12, ¶¶ 23, 44 & Ex. 3, p. 1. Plaintiff cc'd human resources and Title IX officers in an emailed response that same day in which she appealed the reprimand and made a formal complaint, including a request for an investigation into claims that Dr. Reif was hostile toward her, used racist and sexist language, and applied disparate versions of NSU policies and practices toward her. Id., Exs. 4, 6; Docket No. 119, p. 12, ¶ 44. Dr. Sheila Self and Ms. Briana Clifton were appointed and conducted an investigation; however, Plaintiff characterizes the investigation as one used to find a reason to fire her for her next FMLA leave use rather than to investigate her complaints. Docket No. 114, p. 13, ¶ 25; Docket No. 119, pp. 8-9, ¶¶ 25-29; Docket No. 120, pp. 7-8, ¶ 9-11. Additionally, she contends that the poor performance claims against her, cited as support for her termination, were untrue. Docket No. 120, p. 10-11 & 13, ¶¶ 22-26, 41-42.

As to her disability claim, Plaintiff did not notify NSU that she previously had a stroke in 2006, but she did notify Dr. Reif and NSU that she had a cardiac-related seizure disorder, and asserts that this information was included in her FMLA papers. Plaintiff never requested a disability accommodation, but took FMLA leave for her illnesses, which she contends is an accommodation. Docket No. 114, p. 12, ¶¶ 21-22; Docket No. 119, p. 7, ¶¶ 21-22.

NSU contends Plaintiff was fired for her attitude and job performance, including failure to implement critical software and failure to timely resolve ITS work tickets as well as being a micromanager who caused bottlenecks within the ITS department, and her failure to properly report time off. Docket No. 114, pp. 13-14, ¶¶ 30-39. Plaintiff believes that every yearly employment evaluation in the record was favorable in its entirety, and reflects she met expectations. Docket No. 119, p. 12, ¶¶ 41-44. Indeed, Dr. Reif indicated in every section of Plaintiff's 2015 evaluation that she met expectations. Docket No. 114, Ex. 14. However, under “Planning, Organizing, and Time Management Skills,” he stated, “Marci has done well in keeping the ship afloat during a short staffed season. Now that her team is back to full strength, I am hopeful for a more proactive approach to meeting the campus needs.” Id., p. 3. Additionally, under “Previous Year's Goals,” Dr. Reif wrote, “Although I marked ‘Meets Expectations,' these items still need to be addressed. I do not feel they could have been accomplished last year due to the unusual staffing difficulties encountered during this last year.” Id., p. 5.

For her 2016 evaluation, Dr. Reif checked boxes indicating she met expectations in every applicable category. Id., Ex. 15. Under “Innovation/Change/Initiative,” he wrote, “Marci is very open to new ideas and processes as they pertain to other groups. Marci needs to be open to new processes within her own group as we head towards increased campus transparency.” Id., p. 2. Under “Dependability/Reliability,” he wrote, “Marci has had a challenging year with her health and attendance has been impacted. As long as Marci continues to keep me informed, we can easily accommodate. Please ensure that I am informed and that we keep our time as an example to others.” Id., pp. 3-4. Under “Planning, Organizing, and Time Management Skills,” he states, “While I have marked this section as ‘Meets Expectations,' this is the area that needs to improve. The enterprise group gets a pass as they have been so short staffed but now that they are fully staffed and we have added a half time project manager, I expect improvement in the area.”^[3] Id., p. 3. Finally, under Interpersonal Skills/Teamwork, he writes, “Marked ‘Meets Expectations,' but do see that Marci is the ‘Momma Bear' protecting her cubs and sometime struggles to place the needs of the institution first. This is an area that I will continue to monitor.” Id., p. 4.

Although NSU did not attach Plaintiff's 2017 evaluation, she included it as an Exhibit to her response. Again, all the boxes are checked indicating that the Plaintiff met expectations in all applicable categories. Docket No. 119 Ex. 5. Under “Attitude/Professionalism,” Dr. Reif states, “Marci did produce a document for project transparency. W...