Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:20-cv-00502-VMC
• Citation: Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., Civil Action 1:20-cv-00502-VMC (N.D. Ga. Feb 03, 2023)
• Parties: MACHELLE JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA and GEORGIA TECH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

1

MACHELLE JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA and GEORGIA TECH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00502-VMC

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

February 3, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

Victoria Marie Calvert United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 1

Introduction 2

Procedural History 3

Discussion ............................................................................................................... 6

I. Motion for Reconsideration ..................................................................... 6

A. Motion for Reconsideration Legal Standard ..................................... 6

B. Joseph Sanctions Order ......................................................................... 8

C. BOR Sanctions Order .......................................................................... 12

D. Conclusion for Motion for Reconsideration .................................... 19

II. Motions for Summary Judgment .......................................................... 20

A. Summary Judgment Legal Standard ................................................ 20

B. Notice of Objection .............................................................................. 22

C. Background for Motions for Summary Judgment .......................... 25

1. Structure of BOR and GTAA ........................................................... 25

2. Plaintiff's Employment at GT .......................................................... 29

3. Events Leading to Plaintiff's Termination as Head Coach ......... 34

4. Plaintiff's Allegations of Discrimination and Retaliation ........... 48

D. Discussion of Motion for Summary Judgment ............................... 76

1. Ms. Joseph's Claims Arising from Her Termination ................... 79

2. Ms. Joseph's Claims Arising from Disparate Resources ............. 87

3. Ms. Joseph's Claims Arising from a Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment ...................................................................................... 91

4. Other Claims ...................................................................................... 95

Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 96

Introduction

This matter is before the Court on the following motions:

• The Motion of Defendant Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (“BOR”) for Summary Judgment (“BOR MSJ,” Doc. 212);

• The Motion of Defendant Georgia Tech Athletic Association (“GTAA”) for Summary Judgment (“GTAA MSJ,” Doc. 214); and

• The Motion of Plaintiff MaChelle Joseph for Reconsideration (“Motion for Reconsideration” or “MFR,” Doc. 265).

Ms. Joseph filed responses to the BOR MSJ (“Resp. to BOR MSJ”, Doc. 220)^[1]and to the GTAA MSJ (“Resp. to GTAA MSJ,” Doc. 219). BOR and GTAA filed replies respectively (“Reply BOR MSJ,” Doc. 228; “Reply GTAA MSJ,” Doc. 214). The BOR filed a Notice of Objections to evidence submitted in support of the Resp. to BOR MSJ (Doc. 230). Ms. Joseph filed a Response to the Notice of Objections (Doc. 240).

The Motion for Reconsideration seeks reconsideration of two orders entered by the Court (Batten, C.J.) prior to the reassignment of this case to the undersigned: the Court's November 22, 2021 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (“Joseph Sanctions Order,” Doc. 203); and the November 22, 2021 Order Granting Defendant BOR's Motion for Sanctions (“BOR Sanctions Order,” Doc. 204). The Motion for Reconsideration asserts that reconsideration is warranted based on Chief Judge Batten's failure to recuse himself from hearing this case under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

The Court first begins with the undisputed facts and procedural background in this case common to all the motions. Next, the Court turns to the Motion for Reconsideration. Lastly, the Court will address the BOR MSJ and the GTAA MSJ, which will include a more detailed discussion of the factual bases of Ms. Joseph's causes of action.

Procedural History^[2]

From 2003 to 2019, MaChelle Joseph served as the head coach of the women's basketball team (“WBB”) at the Georgia Institute of Technology (“GT”).

(Def. BOR's Statement of Material Facts (“SMF BOR”) ¶ 1, Doc. 212-2; Pl.'s Response to SMF BOR (“RSMF BOR”) ¶ 1, Doc. 220-1). GT is a member institution of the University System of Georgia. (Compl. ¶ 17, Doc. 1-2; Def. BOR's Answ. ¶ 17, Doc. 2.). Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 20-3-51, Defendant BOR is vested with the government, control, and management of the University System of Georgia and all of its institutions, including GT. (Compl. ¶ 17; Def. BOR's Answ. ¶ 17).

Ms. Joseph's employment was terminated on March 26, 2019. (Def.'s SMF BOR ¶ 92; Pl.'s RSMF BOR ¶ 92). On April 16, 2019, Ms. Joseph filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against Defendant BOR. (Compl. ¶ 23; Def. BOR's Answ. ¶ 23). On May 13, 2019, Ms. Joseph filed an Amended EEOC Charge adding Defendant GTAA as an employer. (Compl. ¶ 23, Def. BOR's Answ. ¶ 23; Def. GTAA's Answ. ¶ 23, Doc. 7). On November 25, 2019, Ms. Joseph received a Right to Sue Notice from the EEOC as to both charges. (Compl. ¶ 24, Def. BOR's Answ. ¶ 24; Def. GTAA's Answ. ¶ 24).

Ms. Joseph commenced the instant civil action by filing a Complaint in the Fulton County Superior Court on December 23, 2019. (Doc. 1-2).^[3] BOR removed the action to this Court on February 3, 2020. (Doc. 1).

Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docs. 3, 4, 6, 29). In an Order, the Court dismissed Ms. Joseph's claims against certain individual defendants and narrowed her remaining claims against the remaining Defendants. (“MTD Order,” Doc. 64).

Following the MTD Order, the following counts remain pending against both BOR and GTAA: Count Three for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII; Count Four for sex discrimination based on Ms. Joseph's association with the WBB athletes in violation of Title VII; Count Nine for retaliation in violation of Title IX; Count Ten for retaliation in violation of Title VII; Count Eleven for retaliation in violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Act; Count Twelve for retaliatory hostile work environment in violation of Title IX; Count Thirteen for retaliatory hostile work environment in violation of Title VII; Count Fifteen for violation of the Georgia Open Records Act; and Count Sixteen for litigation expenses. As against the GTAA, the same claims remain pending plus Count Fourteen for breach of contract.

This case was reassigned from Chief Judge Batten to the undersigned district judge on April 11, 2022, because of the undersigned's appointment. Chief Judge Batten did not exercise his discretion to decline the transfer.

Discussion

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Ms. Joseph seeks reconsideration of the Joseph Sanctions Order and the BOR Sanctions Order on the grounds that Chief Judge Batten should have recused himself from hearing this case under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Ms. Joseph alleges that

Judge Batten had ties with BOR generally, as well as with GT and GTAA specifically. More broadly, from 2019 to 2021, Judge Batten worked as a professor for another BOR institution, the University of Georgia, receiving $25,000 annually in 2019, 2020, and 2021 for this work. Ex. 2. More specifically, Judge Batten has had longstanding, close ties to GT and GTAA.

In particular, Judge Batten and two of his daughters attended GT, and his son is currently enrolled at GT.

(Pl.'s Br. Supp. MFR at 4, Doc. 265-1). In the Motion for Reconsideration, Ms. Joseph discusses these connections to BOR in further depth and asserts that as a result of these alleged conflicts of interests, Chief Judge Batten's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, requiring recusal under Section 455(a).

A. Motion for Reconsideration Legal Standard

In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 867 (1988), the Supreme Court held that “vacatur was an appropriate remedy” for a violation of Section 455 in some, but not all cases. “[T]he Supreme Court applied a three-factor test to determine whether a judicial action taken in violation of section 455(a) should be remedied by vacatur pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).” United States v. Cerceda, 172 F.3d 806, 812 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 864). “This test requires a court to consider: ‘[1] the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case, [2] the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases, and [3] the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process.'” Id. (quoting Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 864 and citing Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1526 (11th Cir. 1988)).

The Parties agree that regardless of whether Chief Judge Batten should have recused, if the undersigned were to conduct a de novo review of the challenged orders and reach the same conclusions, it would cure any recusal issues. (Pls.' Br Supp. MTR at 25 n. 21 (“Joseph believes that vacatur is the most appropriate remedy given the extent of Judge Batten's connections with the Defendants in the case and the improper fact findings present in these discretionary orders, however, the Court also has the discretion to conduct a de novo review if it determines vacatur is not warranted.”) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)); (Def....