Greenwell v. Univ. of Alabama Bd. of Trs.
| Decision Date | 22 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 7:11-CV-2313-RDP |
| Parties | DEBBIE GREENWELL, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
The court has before it Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Brief in Support Thereof (Doc. # 21), filed February 3, 2012. The Motion has been fully briefed (Docs. # 22-24). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 28, 2011, and Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 21, 2011. On December 15, 2011, the court determined that Plaintiff's original Complaint was a shotgun pleading and directed Plaintiff to replead her claims in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 16). The court provided Plaintiff with specific instructions on how to remedy her shotgun pleading. (Doc. # 17).
Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on January 20, 2012.1 She asserts claims against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees2 , Mal Moore, Dave Hart, and Robert Witt. (Doc. # 20). Plaintiff was in charge of all aspects of the cheerleading program at the University of Alabama ("UA") from 1987 until her termination on February 2, 2009. (Doc. # 20 ¶¶ 11, 12, 26). Plaintiff worked year-round, and her duties included supervising the cheerleaders and mascots, developing and managing cheerleader summer camps for high school students, and coaching the student dance line from 1992 to 2004. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 13).
Plaintiff was employed with UA but did not have a written contract for employment. (Id. ¶ 18). She was paid a salary for some of her duties and also received a small percentage of the net profits from the summer camps she ran. (Id.) She was paid $2,000 as a part-time employee in 1987, and her salary increased such that in the last two years of her employment she earned $50,000. (Id. ¶ 19). She was required to work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the week but was never compensated for any overtime, though she frequently worked overtime by traveling out of town withthe cheerleaders for athletic events. (Id.) Plaintiff was required to annually sign forms for UA acknowledging that she was an exempt employee under the FLSA. (Id. ¶ 21).
Plaintiff alleges that her duties were substantially similar to the duties performed by male coaches of athletic teams at UA, and that the male coaches were allowed to work fewer hours than Plaintiff but were paid more than Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 12). Further, Plaintiff asserts that "her duties . . . required the same time, skill and expertise of other coaches, and likely had a broader impact on the target audience of [UA] for student recruitment." (Id. ¶ 13). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that her work "significantly enhanced the image" of UA and helped "bring prestige and attention" to UA by aiding in recruiting students and increasing revenue. (Id.) She also asserts that she gained a national reputation for her work in "spirit team management and development." (Id. ¶ 16).
Moore is the Athletic Director at UA, and was Plaintiff's supervisor during most of her employment at UA. (Id. ¶ 14). Hart is the Assistant Athletic Director who served as Plaintiff's supervisor during the last few months or so of her employment; Hart reported to Moore. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 22). Witt, the President of UA, supervised and controlled the athletic department while Plaintiff worked for UA, and the Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority at UA. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that the individual Defendants had direct knowledge of Plaintiff's contributions, abilities, and the time she spent working. (Id. ¶ 14). She further asserts that they knew or should have known of her work duties and rate of compensation. (Id. ¶ 15).
Plaintiff alleges that she complained about "the extraordinary responsibility she bore as a result of her job duties to superiors within the athletic department." (Id. ¶ 22). She also asserts that she spoke with Carole Keyes, her direct supervisor, several times about "funding for services and personnel that she felt would benefit [UA's] cheerleading program, and eliminate some of the workload she was being expected to carry." (Id. ¶ 22). Due to these communications, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were aware of her complaints, and that Defendants consequently acted in retaliation for her complaints. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that she told Moore numerous times that she needed a more equitable level of compensation and that her athletes needed more support. (Id. ¶ 23). Further, she allegedly discussed these same concerns with Hart when he took over Moore's daily duties. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23). Specifically, Plaintiff claims she sought (1) secure and certain practice locations; (2) tutoring and scholastic scheduling assistance for the athletes under her direction; and (3) additional scholarship funding for the cheerleaders and mascots. (Id. ¶ 23). According to Plaintiff, her requests were ignored. (Id.)
Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that a group of parents, whose children were students under her direction, sent a letter to Witt asking for support for the cheerleading program and reiterating Plaintiff's requests. (Id. ¶ 24). Witt never granted the requested support. (Id.)
Plaintiff also asserts that though she always received excellent employee reviews, she was terminated on February 2, 2009. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26). She was simply handed a letter informing her that she was terminated for "poor judgment." (Id. ¶ 26). She states that she was offered no further details on her termination, nor was she offered a hearing. (Id.) When she was terminated, she was months away from reaching her twenty-five years with the State of Alabama Teacher's Retirement System, of which both Moore and Hart were aware. (Id. ¶ 27). She requested to be moved to another location at UA to secure her retirement benefits - contending that similar arrangements had been made for other long-term employees who were dismissed shortly before they reached retirement status - but her request was denied. (Id.)
On the day she was terminated, Plaintiff was informed by a representative of the UA Board of Trustees that she would receive the remainder of her earnings from the summer camps and compensation for sick days and vacation days she had not taken, which amounted to a sum of approximately $26,000. (Id. ¶ 30). However, soon after her termination, she received a letter from the Human Resources department at UA informing her that these funds were being withheld under UA's policy pending the results of an audit. (Id. ¶ 31). Plaintiff asserts that these funds are still being withheld from her without justification. (Id.)
Plaintiff asserts that after she filed her EEOC charge, UA informed her that it was requesting the Tuscaloosa County District Attorney to seek an indictment of Plaintiff for financial malfeasance. (Id. ¶ 37). She alleges that she has never received an explanation for the accusation of financial malfeasance. (Id.) On June 28, 2011, Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury in Tuscaloosa on criminal charges of theft of property and ethics violations as a public employee.3 (Id. ¶ 38). Plaintiff asserts that the representations made to law enforcement officials by UA (through its agents) were knowingly false, designed "to create a suspicion of wrong doing sufficient for a probable cause arrest" against Plaintiff and made in retaliation for Plaintiff filing an EEOC charge. (Id. ¶ 39). Further, Plaintiff asserts that she was replaced by a younger male (under the age of 40), and though he has since left, he also was replaced by someone under the age of 40. (Id. ¶ 40).
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted in concert and with wanton and reckless disregard for Plaintiff's reputation, emotional distress, and future employment opportunities, andhave published or caused to be published false allegations insinuating dishonest acts or thievery by Plaintiff "in retaliation for her civil rights complaint." (Id. ¶ 32). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have hurt her reputation and employment prospects. (Id. ¶ 36). Further, she claims that Defendants have caused her emotional distress and actual pain and suffering by publicly humiliating her and prohibiting her from entering UA's property. (Id. ¶ 36).
Plaintiff asserts the following claims against all four Defendants in her Amended Complaint: (1) a violation of Title VII; (2) a § 1983 claim for "the taking and deprivation of her property, earnings, and employment without Due Process" and a claim under § 6-5-260 of the Alabama Code for the wrongful taking of her property; (3) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's substantive constitutional rights; (4) a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"); (5) a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (6) a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; and (7) defamation, slander, and libel under the Alabama Code. (Id. ¶¶ 43-52). Plaintiff requests compensation for back wages, future wages she would have earned, loss of her reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental distress. (Id. ¶ 53). She further seeks attorney's fees, costs of this action, experts and actual witness fee costs, interest, and any other damages to which she is entitled.
Plaintiff claims that she has exhausted the administrative remedies for her Title VII and ADEA claims, and has attached her EEOC Charge of Discrimination and Right to Sue Letter (Docs. # 20-1, # 20-2). In her EEOC charge, Plaintiff alleged sex and age discrimination claims against Defendant UA. The stamp on the charge indicates that it was received by the EEOC on August 3,2009.4 (Doc. # 20-1 at 2). Plaintiff did not check the box for retaliation nor did she otherwise allege in her administrative charge that Defendants retaliated...
To continue reading
Request your trial