Earl v. Norfolk State Univ.
| Decision Date | 26 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil No.: 2:13cv148 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | DR. ARCHIE EARL, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF VISITORS OF NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and DR. TONY ATWATER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on a third motion to dismiss filed by Norfolk State University ("NSU"), the Board of Visitors of Norfolk State University ("BOV"), the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Dr. Tony Atwater (collectively "Defendants"), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). After examining the briefs and the record, the Court determines that oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. R. 7(J). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.
Dr. Archie Earl ("Plaintiff") is a "66 year old, Black, male Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Norfolk State University, a "state supported" university located in "the Commonwealth of Virginia." Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 23.2 Aside from his professorial duties at NSU, Plaintiff also serves as "Chair of the NSU Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee" ("the Committee"). Id. In 2006, according to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, the Committee began to study "gross inequities in faculty salaries." Id. ¶ 10. The purpose of the Committee's study was to "advise the NSU administration of its findings, in order that remedial stepscould be taken to redress such inequities, if any, as may be uncovered." Id. Plaintiff alleges that the Committee requested the relevant "data from the NSU Human Resources Office," but claims that "the data provided were filled with serious errors that would have led to unreliable results." Id. Plaintiff does not describe the nature of the alleged errors found in the data. The "Committee then decided to modify its study" to analyze "only sample data" from the Committee members' own departments. Id. ¶ 11. According to Plaintiff, NSU advised the Committee "that it was preparing its own study of the salary inequities question, promising to reveal the results of this study so that the matter may be resolved reasonably, amicably, and with dispatch." Id.
Meanwhile, "based on the Committee's ongoing analysis," Plaintiff asserts that he discovered that his own salary was "woefully inadequate" compared to "recent hires, and white faculty, and younger faculty, and female faculty," although Plaintiff alleges that "he was at least as qualified" and that "the responsibilities of the job[s] were essentially equivalent." Id. ¶ 12. "[U]sing inferential statistical analyses" of the sample data, the Committee determined that NSU was discriminating against "[b]lack faculty," "men," and "aged (over 40) faculty." Id. ¶¶ 14-16. However, Plaintiff does not provide the results of the Committee's "inferential statisticalanalyses" or otherwise describe the results of the study, except with respect to his own salary. Id.
On "December 8, 2011," after failed "attempts at discussions with the administration," Plaintiff filed in his own name a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), "alleging discrimination based on the basis of race, gender, and age." Id. In the Charge of Discrimination ("EEOC charge"), Plaintiff named "NORFOLK STATE" as his employer, alleged that the discrimination occurred between April 1, 2008 and December 8, 2011, and checked the appropriate box to indicate a "CONTINUING ACTION." EEOC Charge, ECF No. 14-1.3 As the types of discrimination he allegedly suffered, Plaintiff checked the boxes for "RACE," "SEX," "AGE," and "OTHER," with the words "Equal Pay" typed in a box next to the checked "OTHER" box. Id. In the "Particulars" section of the EEOC charge, Plaintiff stated the following:
Id. Plaintiff asserts that, on December 21, 2012, after the "EEOC ended its investigation," the EEOC "issued a right-to-sue letter to Plaintiff." Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 23.
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is hardly a model of clarity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff alleges no "Counts" against Defendants, but instead presents four "Causes of Action," incorporating "each and every preceding paragraph numbered above, inclusive, just as though they were fully set forth herein." Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. at 10, ECF No. 23. Each Cause of Action cites the statute allegedly violated by Defendants, but fails to clearly identify the type of discrimination alleged or the theories supporting Plaintiff's claims. However, because the Court must "view[] even poorlydrafted complaints in a light most favorable to the plaintiff," Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 n.4 (4th Cir. 1993), the Court liberally construes Plaintiff's four Causes of Action and attempts to present the pertinent facts, scattered throughout his Second Amended Complaint, to support each Cause of Action.
First, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges wage discrimination by Defendants on the basis of race, in violation of "Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq." Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ¶ 18, ECF No. 23. Plaintiff brings his Title VII race discrimination claim as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, id. ¶ 8, on behalf of "all Black Faculty at Norfolk State," id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff's Cause of Action alleges that Defendants advanced a "policy of unequal salaries for essentially the same work as White faculty, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility by otherwise comparable Black faculty." Id.
Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts that, "using inferential statistical analyses" on the sample data obtained from the Committee's members, the Committee determined that "NSU was engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination, based on race, in its policy of faculty remuneration, in violation of Title VII." Id. ¶ 14.Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "[b]lack faculty of equal qualifications, and responsibilities, and job assignments were much disadvantaged in terms of salaries, as compared to white faculty." Id. The only "[b]lack faculty" mentioned in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is Plaintiff himself. Id.
In support of his Title VII race discrimination claim, Plaintiff identifies two white comparators, whom he refers to as "W1 and W2 (to keep their identities private)." Id. Plaintiff alleges that W1 and W2 are "both on the same nine month contract as Plaintiff," and "work under the same supervisor [as Plaintiff]," but asserts that W1 and W2 teach only "9 hours per semester . . . while Plaintiff teaches 12 hours per semester." Id. Plaintiff asserts that W1 is an untenured assistant professor, "with far less teaching experience than Plaintiff," and that W2 is a tenured associate professor "with about the same number of years teaching as Plaintiff." Id. Plaintiff alleges that W1 "earned $58,000 and W2 earned $68,505," and "yet Plaintiff earned $57,605." Id.
Next, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges wage discrimination by Defendants based on sex, in violation of the "Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)." Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff brings his EPA claim "as a collective action," "pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the Fair Labor Standards Act collective actionprovision," id. ¶ 8, on behalf of "all male faculty at NSU who chose [sic] to opt in," id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges an "inequity of pay as between female faculty and similarly qualified male faculty at NSU, for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility." Id.
Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts that the Committee concluded, "after similar statistical analyses, . . . that NSU was impermissibly discriminating against men, and in favor of women, of comparable qualifications and responsibilities, and skill in salary assignments, and all this in violation of the Equal Pay Act." Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff is the only affected male faculty member mentioned in his Second Amended Complaint.
In support of his EPA claim, Plaintiff identifies two female comparators, whom he refers to as "F1, and F2 (to protect their privacy)." Id. Plaintiff asserts that F1 and F2 "teach in the same department as Plaintiff, and they all teach the same courses, or, at worst, courses that are fungible." Id. Plaintiff asserts that they "work under the same chairperson, and work under nine month contracts, even though F1 and F2 teach nine hours per semester, while Plaintiff carries a twelve hour load." Id. According to Plaintiff, F1 is an untenured assistant professor with "very little teaching experience," and F2 is an untenured associate professor with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial