Doe v. State

• Decision Date: 18 August 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL CCB-20-2213
• Parties: JANE DOE a.k.a. BERRI A. WELLS v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

JANE DOE a.k.a. BERRI A. WELLS v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.

CIVIL No. CCB-20-2213

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 18, 2021

MEMORANDUM

Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

In this matter, plaintiff Jane Doe a.k.a. Berri A. Wells (“Wells”) brings discrimination, due process breach of contract, consumer protection, and other tort claims against various federal and Maryland state entities and the Middle States Commission on Higher Education concerning her dismissal from and reinstatement to a graduate program at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (“UMES”) after she received a failing grade in her first course. Now pending are the motions to dismiss brought by the state defendants (ECF 19), the federal defendants (ECF 27), and the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (ECF 35); and Wells's motion for summary judgment and her motion to take discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) (ECF 39; ECF 45). These matters have been fully briefed or the parties have had an opportunity to respond and no oral argument is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, the court will grant the motions to dismiss and deny Wells's motions for summary judgment and to take discovery.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the Fall of 2018, Wells, a fifty-five-year-old African American woman, was a student in UMES's Organizational Leadership Program. (ECF 2, Compl ¶¶ 4, 9). UMES is an historically Black college. (Id. ¶ 3). Wells's first course, OLRD 601 - Theories and Organizations, was taught by Dr. Prince Attoh and classes were held over the month of September. (Id. ¶¶4, 9). There were seven assignments for the course, including one presentation, one group project, four writing assignments, and a final exam. (Id.; ECF 2-5, Ex. C; ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 38). The first written assignment for the course was due by the end of the day on September 6, 2018. (ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 2). On September 6 2018, Wells emailed Dr. Attoh to request to turn in the assignment at 9:00 a.m. the following morning, because she was occupied with looking for housing. (Id.). Dr Attoh denied the request. (Id.). Wells attempted to email the assignment to Dr. Attoh at 9:07 p.m. on the evening of September 6, but she sent the assignment to an incorrect email address for Dr. Attoh. (Id. at 4). Minutes earlier, Wells had successfully emailed an assignment that appears to have been associated with the presentation assignment. (Id. at 5 (emailing a PDF entitled “Assignment Number One Org Chart v2”); ECF 2-5 Ex. C (describing organization chart presentation)). Dr. Attoh appears to have ultimately received part of the first writing assignment, as he emailed Wells on September 14, 2018, with an evaluation for one part of the assignment, but informed her that she had not submitted a complete assignment. (ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 8). Later that day, Wells submitted the remainder of the assignment. (Id. at 9). Wells received no credit for the assignment. (ECF 2, Compl. ¶ 11; ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 38).

Wells received a grade of 5/5 on the presentation assignment. (ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 38). Wells submitted an additional “reflection paper” on September 14, participated in a group project, and took a final exam, and received scores of 8/10, 19/20, and 21/25 on those assignments, respectively. (ECF 2, Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15; ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 38). For the group project, Wells was partnered with a white male student who was younger than her. (ECF 2, Compl ¶ 15). Wells received a score of 5/10 for an additional writing assignment that focused on critiquing an empirical article, because, Wells concedes, she failed to follow the rubric for the assignment Dr. Attoh provided and because she did not select an appropriate empirical article to critique. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 17; ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 38; ECF 2-16, Ex. N).

Wells's final written assignment, an “argument paper, ” was due on September 28, 2018. (ECF 2-5, Ex. C). On October 2, 2018, Dr. Attoh notified Wells that he was grading papers and did not see an argument paper from her. (ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 35). At 11:58 a.m. the following morning, Dr. Attoh emailed Wells, asking her to call him and stating “it is c[ruc]ial that you call me today.” (Id. at 34). Several hours later, Wells emailed Dr. Attoh to inform him that she “was not able to complete the paper” but was “working on it[.]” (Id. at 35). As with the earlier missed deadline, Wells's excuse for failing to turn in the assignment was related to housing-“[t]he rental that [she] decided on, fell through and [she] had to find another property[.]” (Id.). Dr. Attoh responded: “Please do not submit the paper. I have already calculated grades for 601. That is why I had asked you to call me. If you are available, can you call me now? . . . We need to discuss what happens next after your 601 evaluation.” (Id. at 36). In some parts of the complaint, Wells appears to allege that she did ultimately email this final assignment to Dr. Attoh; however, she acknowledges in other attachments to her complaint that the assignment was not timely submitted. (Id. at 39; ECF 2-5, Ex. C at 4; ECF 2-13, Ex. K, Second Appeal, at 5).

On October 4, 2018, Dr. Attoh emailed Wells her final evaluation for the course. Largely because of her failure to timely submit two assignments, Wells received a failing grade. (ECF 24, Ex. B at 38). Dr. Attoh included with the evaluation a quote taken from the UMES graduate handbook: “A student who receives a final course grade of “F” at any time will be immediately dismissed from the program.” (Id.; ECF 2-11, Ex. I, Excerpt of UMES Graduate Catalog at 3). He further indicated that the Graduate Studies Office would follow up with a formal dismissal letter and that she should drop her next courses before their start dates in order to receive a refund. (ECF 2-4, Ex. B at 38). Wells received a letter from Interim Dean LaKeisha Harris on the same day, informing her of her termination from the program. (ECF 2-3, Ex. A). Wells alleges that her grade was arbitrary because Dr. Attoh “withheld” her grade until the end of the course and did not return each graded assignment to students in a “timely” manner. (ECF 2, Compl. ¶ 10). She contends that feedback should have been given on the same day assignments were turned in. (Id.) Wells further alleges that the UMES grading policy is less favorable to students than the grading policies at University of Maryland University College (UMUC). (Id. ¶ 28; ECF 2-18, Ex. P. UMUC Syllabus). She further includes with her complaint a letter from another former student of the Organizational Leadership Program who believes Dr. Attoh to have unfairly graded her work as a “millennial” student. (ECF 2-32, Ex. CC, Settles Ltr.).

On October 9, 2018, Wells appealed her failing grade and requested to be readmitted to the Organizational Leadership Program in accordance with UMES policy. (ECF 2-8, Ex. F, Appeal; ECF 2-9, Ex. G, Appeal of Dismissal/Discontinuation Policies and Procedures). On December 4, 2018, Dean Harris sent Wells a letter advising her that “[a]fter a review of the policies and procedures for the doctoral program in Organizational Leadership, ” the University was rescinding her dismissal effective that day. (ECF 2-12, Ex. J, 12-4-2018 Harris Ltr.). The letter further informed Wells that she had been withdrawn from course 601 and would receive any refunds applicable. (Id.). Following the withdrawal, Wells's grade for course 601 was changed from an “F” to a “W.” (ECF 2, Compl. ¶ 24; ECF 2-27, Ex. X, 9-28-2019 Harris Ltr.). Despite the letter rescinding her dismissal, Wells filed an additional appeal to Jason Casares, a UMES employee in the Office of Institution Equity and Compliance. (ECF 2-13, Ex. K, Second Appeal). In this second appeal, Wells wrote that she called the Office of Student Accounts on November 30, 2018, and learned that she would need to pay a balance of over $7, 200 by June 2019. (Id.).

Wells disputes the debt UMES claims she owes before she can reenroll in the Organizational Leadership Program, which had grown to $8, 986.77 by July 1, 2019. (ECF 2, Compl. ¶ 32; ECF 2-30, Ex. AA at 3). Wells has received letters and notices from UMES attempting to collect the alleged debt and her account balance has been referred to the State of Maryland Central Collection Unit (“CCU”) for collection. (ECF 2, Compl. ¶¶ 45-46; ECF 2-30, Ex. AA at 3). Following Wells's continued correspondence to Dean Harris regarding her alleged debt and desire to reenroll, Dean Harris sent Wells a letter on September 18, 2019, which stated:

Dear Ms. Wells:

I have reviewed your appeal for tuition reimbursement and have spoken to the University Registrar and the Student Accounts Office. It has been determined that you are not entitled to a refund for courses that you were withdrawn from in fall 2018.

In fall 2018, you were withdrawn from ORLD 601 after I reviewed the policies and procedures for that program and determined that you were dismissed in error. I sent notice to you on December 4, 2018 at which time you acknowledged receipt. In reviewing your financial account, it was determined that you were notified by the Office of Financial Aid that you were no longer eligible for financial aid because you were not enrolled in the required number of courses.

As a result of you no longer being eligible for Aid, all Federal Aid paid to you had to be sent back to the Federal Government via UMES. Subsequently, you now owe UMES the balance. I was informed that notices regarding your balance had been sent to you periodically. As I stated in my Readmission letter to you on June 25, 2019, you have been granted readmission to the Organizational Leadership program and the University, however, I am unable to assist you with the payment of your prior balance.

Please

...