Hawthorne-Burdine v. Oakland Univ.

• Decision Date: 27 January 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-cv-13285
• Citation: 158 F.Supp.3d 586
• Parties: Dorothy Hawthorne-Burdine, Plaintiff, v. Oakland University, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

158 F.Supp.3d 586

Dorothy Hawthorne-Burdine, Plaintiff,

v.Oakland University, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-13285

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed January 27, 2016

Dorothy Hawthorne-Burdine, Auburn Hills, MI, pro se.

Daniel J. Bernard, Law Office of Daniel J. Bernard, Clinton Township, MI, Katherine J. Van Dyke, Jackson Lewis P.C., Southfield, MI, for Defendants.

Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment [12] and Granting Medicolegal's Motion to Dismiss [14]

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, United States District Court Judge

I. Introduction

On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff Dorothy Hawthorne-Burdine (“Plaintiff”), filed her Complaint against Oakland University, Oakland University Police Department, Medicolegal Services, LLC, 28 individually named defendants, and Does 1–100 (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 1. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 57 page, 300 paragraph First Amended Complaint, alleging Oakland University discriminated against her on the basis of disability, race, and age in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff also alleges various state law claims, including violations of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.2101, et seq.

; and Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.1101, et seq.

Id.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on October 29, 2015. Dkt. No. 12. Defendant Medicolegal Services, LCC filed a separate Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff filed a response brief on December 7, 2015, Dkt. No. 24.¹ For the reasons discussed herein, Court will GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment [12] and DENY Medicolegal's Motion to Dismiss [14] as MOOT .

II. Background

A. Plaintiff's Employment at Oakland University

Plaintiff is an African-American female who is currently 63 years old. Dkt. No. 4, p. 2, ¶ 1 (Pg. ID No. 58). Plaintiff was hired by Oakland University in August 2010 as an Associate Professor in the School of Nursing. Id. Plaintiff's employment consisted of her teaching two terms—fall and winter—in an eight month academic year for four years, ending in 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 43–44, 47.

During the first year of Plaintiff's employment, things quickly soured between her and the School of Nursing staff. See id. at ¶ 88. In June 2011, Plaintiff was called to a meeting with the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Interim Dean, and the Executive Director of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).² Dkt. No. 12, p. 10 (Pg. ID No. 254). The meeting was to address Plaintiff's confrontational behavior towards administrative staff, who Plaintiff felt treated her with disrespect because they called her by her first name, and Plaintiff's refusal to complete required forms. See id. ; Dkt. No. 4, p. 17, ¶ 88 (Pg. ID No. 73). Defendants allege that a police officer, posted outside the meeting room, had been tempted to intervene due to Plaintiff's volume. See Dkt. No. 12–2, p. 3 (Pg. ID No. 279); Dkt. No. 4, p. 18, ¶ 96 (Pg. ID No. 74).

The interim dean issued a letter to Plaintiff, apprising her about performance deficiencies. Dkt. No. 12–3, pp. 2–3 (Pg. ID No. 281–82). The letter also served to remind Plaintiff that Oakland University required her to complete external grant applications,³ comply with the faculty travel and reimbursement process, and abstain from intimidating, threatening, or harassing any persons. Id. A follow-up letter was sent in July 2011, summarizing the meeting and noting that Plaintiff “made it clear that [she had] no intention of following Oakland University policies or procedures or interacting with faculty and staff in a meaningful, professional manner.” Dkt. No. 12–4, pp. 2–3 (Pg. ID No. 284–85). Plaintiff was asked to reconsider her position. Id.

Adversarial incidents continued to occur after the summer 2011 meeting. In October 2011, the Chair of the Nursing Committee on Advancement and Promotion (NCAP) reported that Plaintiff had verbally abused other attendees, including one incident in which Plaintiff started screaming “get out” repeatedly at another attendee.⁴ Dkt. No. 12–5, p. 1 (Pg. ID No. 287). In March 2013, Plaintiff told the Assistant Dean of the School of Nursing to “get [her] ignorant ass out of [Plaintiff's] office,”⁵ after the Assistant Dean attempted to limit Plaintiff's interaction with a faculty candidate to keep the process similar for all applicants. Dkt. No. 12–6, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 289). The Associate Dean also reported being frightened of Plaintiff's explosive behavior and that Plaintiff told other employees that the Associate Dean was a “bitch.” Id. Plaintiff disputes that she ever called the Associate Dean a “bitch,” and claims that the Associate Dean could not be frightened of Plaintiff because they went out to lunch and Plaintiff paid. Dkt. No. 4, pp. 23–24, ¶ 130 (Pg. ID No. 79–80).

In June 2013, the Oakland University Police Department reviewed concerns expressed by various staff members about Plaintiff's behavior. Dkt. No. 12, p. 11 (Pg. ID No. 255). According to the reports submitted to the police department, three witnesses reported concerns about their interactions with Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 12–7, pp. 2–3 (Pg. ID No. 291–92). Plaintiff was described to police as exhibiting “very aggressive behavior,” causing fear and discomfort to her colleagues, and making threats against a co-worker. Id. (“[Plaintiff] has stated that she does not like [her colleague] and that one day she will ‘tear her apart’ and ‘no one will be able to pull her off.’ ”) Despite the behavior exhibited by Plaintiff, it was determined that she was not yet a security threat. See id.

B. Plaintiff's Request for Disability Accommodation

In August 2013, Plaintiff alleges that the Associate Provost denied her request for disability accommodation submitted on May 16, 2013.⁶ Dkt. No. 4, p. 30, ¶ 170. The Associate Provost instructed Plaintiff to work with administrators in the School of Nursing on her accommodations. Id. at ¶ 172. Plaintiff believed that this “indicated that the University would take no further action,” and thus was not an adequate accommodation. Id.

C. Removal from Campus

The adversarial relationship between Plaintiff and her employer reached a climax in September 2013. A student in Plaintiff's Nursing 452 class recorded Plaintiff making a twenty-two minute long monologue during class about student grading⁷ and lack of respect from prior students. See Dkt. No. 22.⁸ The student reported that she recorded this class because it was the fourth class in which Plaintiff exhibited abnormal behavior. Dkt. No. 12, p. 13 (Pg. ID No. 257).

Plaintiff's monologue seemed to focus on the “harsh and high level of student incivility” that Plaintiff claims to have previously experienced in teaching at Oakland University. See Dkt. No. 22. During her statements, Plaintiff said she could file grievances against her students, calling herself “the grievance queen,” and notifying them that “nobody has ever won a grievance against [her]” and any colleagues that came up against her had backed off. Id. When a student spoke in opposition to Plaintiff's monologue, Plaintiff demanded to know the student's name and assured her that she would remember her. Id. After that point, Plaintiff interrupted any student who tried to speak against the monologue, saying “No—you listen to me ” and “I don't know who you are and I don't want to know you.” Id. If a student were to treat her with disrespect, Plaintiff stated she would “cut loose on them” and “lock the door and make them stay there” until she finished. Id. Plaintiff even seemed to acknowledge that the monologue was inappropriate, stating that she could not talk to the students that way if other professors were around to evaluate her classes in accordance with her tenure application. See id.

The student who made the recording went to the Dean's office to report the incident before the class ended. Dkt. No. 12, p. 13 (Pg. ID No. 257). The student later stated during arbitration that she “felt very disrespected and threatened” by Plaintiff, and that she no longer found Plaintiff's classroom to be “a safe place to learn.” Dkt. No. 12–10, p. 3 (Pg. ID No. 303). Hearing a portion of the recording, the Dean and Associate Dean went to meet with the Associate Provost about their concerns, avoiding Plaintiff on the way to the Provost's office. Dkt. No. 12, p. 13 (Pg. ID No. 257). The Associate Provost listened to all of the recordings and consulted with the Oakland University's General Counsel due to her concern that “[i]t didn't seem to [her] to be a safe, healthy environment.” Dkt. No. 12–11, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 306). The Associate Provost then spoke with the Chief of Police and it was recommended that the matter be referred to the Behavioral Concerns Committee (BCC). Id. at 2–3. The BCC had been established several years prior to prevent on-campus violence by “assessing and addressing the mental health needs of persons who may be at risk of campus violence by harming themselves or others.” Dkt. No. 12, p, 12 (Pg. ID No. 256).

The day after the class was recorded, the BCC convened to assess whether the recording constituted a threat to the University community.⁹ Id. at 15. BCC members stated that, based on what they heard on the recording, Plaintiff had acted inappropriately and was “out of control.” Id. at 15–16. A clinical psychologist who served on the BCC stated that he was concerned that Plaintiff's behavior represented “a psychotic break, a severe and intense manifestation of a personality disorder,...