Kantz v. Univ. of the Virgin Islands

• Decision Date: 19 May 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2008-0047
• Parties: KELLY KANTZ, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

KELLY KANTZ, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2008-0047

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

May 19, 2016

Attorneys:

Lee J. Rohn, Esq.,

Mary Faith Carpenter, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For Plaintiff

Marie E. Thomas-Griffith, Esq.,

Samuel H. Hall, Jr., Esq.,

St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.

For Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 83, 85), Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 84), Plaintiff's Revised Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 110), Plaintiff's Revised Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Counter-Statement of Additional Facts (Dkt. No. 111), Defendant's Supplemental Brief (Dkt. No. 114), Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Supplemental Brief (Dkt. No. 117), Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. No. 122), and Plaintiff's "Notice of Additional Authority" (Dkt. No. 124). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Kelly Kantz ("Plaintiff") brings this reverse discrimination action against Defendant University of the Virgin Islands ("Defendant"), alleging discrimination on the basis of race and color, retaliation, and constructive discharge, in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virgin Islands Civil Rights Act. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 12; Compl. ¶¶ 1, 59-60). She also asserts claims of defamation, defamation per se, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. (Id. at 12-14; Compl. ¶¶ 62-73).

Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which it seeks judgment as a matter of law on several grounds. (Dkt. Nos. 83, 85, 114, 122).¹ Specifically, Defendant argues that: (1) Plaintiff's Title VII claims are barred as untimely; (2) Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust her "denial of tenure" allegations before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"); (3) Plaintiff has failed to establish a constructive discharge claim; (4) Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages; (5) Plaintiff has not established the existence of respondeat superior liability; (6) Plaintiff does not have a private cause of action under the Virgin Islands Civil RightsAct; and (7) Plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary elements of defamation. (See Dkt. Nos. 85, 114, 122). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Dkt. Nos. 110, 111, 117).

For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will grant Defendant's Motion on statute of limitations grounds, as it pertains to all Title VII claims of discrimination that occurred more than 300 days prior to the filing of Plaintiff's charge of discrimination with the EEOC; grant Defendant's Motion on the constructive discharge claim; grant Defendant's Motion on the claim for punitive damages; deny Defendant's Motion as to administrative exhaustion of Plaintiff's "denial of tenure" allegations; deny Defendant's Motion as it pertains to its claim that Plaintiff has not established the existence of respondeat superior liability; deny Defendant's Motion on the claim that there is no private cause of action under the Virgin Islands Civil Rights Act; and deny Defendant's Motion on all but one of Plaintiff's defamation claims. The Court will also deny without prejudice Defendant's Motion as it pertains to Plaintiff's claims under the Virgin Islands Civil Rights Act, and set a schedule for further briefing, in view of the caution expressed by the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands against using federal jurisprudence to interpret the local Civil Rights Act.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff, a white female, was employed at the University of the Virgin Islands ("the University"), within its Division of Education ("Division"), now known as the School of Education, from 2004 to 2007 as an Assistant Professor of Education.² In August 2006, the University hired Dr. Cynthia Jackson ("Dr. Jackson"), a black female, as the Administrative Chairperson of the Division. Dr. Jackson then hired Dr. Rita Howard ("Dr. Howard"), also a black female, as the Assistant Chairperson of the Division. Plaintiff claims that both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Howard discriminated against her and other white employees within the Division based on theirrace and color.³ As a result of this alleged discrimination, Plaintiff contends that she was forced to resign from her position with the University in August 2007.

During the year leading up to her resignation, Plaintiff filed four grievances with the University.⁴ The first grievance, filed on October 31, 2006 and addressed to Dr. Al Hassan I. Musah, the then Provost of the University ("Provost Musah"), alleged that Dr. Jackson—in violation of the Faculty Policy Manual—indicated during a meeting on October 20, 2006, that no faculty member would be paid over load pay for teaching additional classes during the Fall 2006 semester until class cancellations occurred for the Spring 2007 semester. (Dkt. No. 105-22).⁵ The grievance was settled on December 8, 2006, when the University paid Plaintiff—prior to the end of the Fall 2006 semester—the over load pay she had earned. (Dkt. No. 85-3 at 2).

On March 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed two additional grievances. The first of the two grievances alleged that Dr. Jackson had not, as requested, updated Plaintiff's Faculty Utilization Report ("FUR") to reflect additional work she had done—i.e., teaching an independent study course to a student. (Dkt. No. 106-25). This grievance was settled when Provost Musah updated Plaintiff's FUR to accurately reflect the additional course. (See Dkt. No. 85-1 at 5).

The second of the two grievances alleged that Dr. Jackson slept for approximately 20 minutes during a one-hour observation of Plaintiff's class, and that the subsequent evaluation was inaccurate and "punitive in nature." (Dkt. No. 106-24 at 1). Plaintiff requested that Dr. Jackson'sevaluation be removed from her personnel record and that the University "assign a colleague to complete a new classroom observation." (Id.). In a written response to Plaintiff's grievance, Dr. Jackson denied sleeping during her observation of Plaintiff's class. (See Dkt. No. 106-6).

On May 8, 2007, Provost Musah informed Plaintiff and Dr. Jackson that Dr. Utha O. Williams ("Dr. Williams"), Interim Executive Director for Global and Graduate Education at the University, had reviewed Plaintiff's grievance concerning Dr. Jackson's classroom observation and evaluation, and that Dr. Williams had made the following recommendation:

The redress for a faculty member who is dissatisfied with the ratings of a classroom observation as part of the annual evaluation process is to provide written response or rebuttal on the points in question. Such rebuttal document shall become part of the official [personnel] record along with, but not in place of, the performance appraisal or evaluation conducted by the Administrative Chair.

With respect to the request that a colleague be assigned to complete a new classroom observation, the reviewer finds it is inappropriate for an alternate faculty member within the division, someone who was not present at the observation or who is not part of the annual evaluation process, to conduct an independent observation of the faculty member's performance. A follow-up attempt at dialog between the faculty member and the Administrative Chair is recommended.

(Dkt. No. 85-1 at 5-6). Provost Musah advised Plaintiff that if she was dissatisfied with Dr. Williams' recommendation, she could, within two weeks of receipt of Dr. Williams' report and recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing before the Faculty Grievance Committee. (Id. at 6). In a letter dated May 16, 2007, Plaintiff requested such a hearing. (Dkt. No. 106-4).

The hearing was held on June 27, 2007. After the hearing, the Faculty Grievance Committee issued a report to Provost Musah, in which it made the following findings:

The Faculty Grievance Committee received testimony from two students in Dr. Kantz's class confirming the allegation that Dr. Jackson slept during her classroom observation of Dr. Kantz. The Committee believes that this fact alone invalidates any statements made by Dr. Jackson in the Classroom Observation Appraisal Form. Moreover, without commenting on Dr. Jackson's professional judgments of Dr. Kantz's performance, the Committee finds that the use of sarcasm in referring to Dr. Kantz's knowledge of the subject matter of the lesson indicates that Dr. Jackson's Classroom Observation Appraisal was disrespectful and less than objective. The Committee therefore believes that the opportunity for the facultymember to attach a written response to the disputed evaluation, which is a normal part of the evaluation procedure, is not sufficient redress in this case due to the extraordinary circumstances.

(Dkt. No. 106-6). Based on the foregoing, the Committee recommended that:

[T]he Classroom Observation Appraisal Form submitted by Dr. Jackson be withdrawn from Dr. Kantz's personnel file, and that she be given the opportunity for a new Classroom Observation by a senior member of the faculty in the Education Division.

(Id.).

On July 23, 2007, Provost Musah sent a Memorandum to the Faculty Grievance Committee, in which he accepted the Committee's recommendation that the University remove Dr. Jackson's evaluation from Plaintiff's personnel file, but rejected the Committee's recommendation that a senior faculty member in the Education Division conduct another observation of Plaintiff's teaching. (Dkt. No. 85-1 at 7). Provost Musah explained that such a practice would be inconsistent...