McLaughlin v. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs.

• Decision Date: 12 April 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-22942-KMM
• Citation: 533 F.Supp.3d 1149
• Parties: Christina MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

533 F.Supp.3d 1149

Christina MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff,

v.FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-22942-KMM

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed April 12, 2021

Diana McLaughlin, Naples, FL, for Plaintiff.

Lourdes Espino Wydler, Oscar Edmund Marrero, Marrero & Wydler, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants Florida International University Board of Trustees, Chair of FIU Board of Trustees, President of Florida International University, Dean of the FIU College of Law 2009-2017, Interim Dean FIU Law 2017, FIU Adjunct Professor of Law 2016-2017, Howard Wasserman, Rosario L. Schrier, Thomas E Baker, Scott F. Norberg, FIU Associate Professor of Law 2016-2017, Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs, The Board of Governors for the State University System of Florida, Chair of Florida Board of Governors of State University System, Assistant Counsel Florida Board of Governor.

John Steven Leinicke, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants United States Department of Education Office of General Counsel, Secretary U.S. Dept. of Education.

OMNIBUS ORDER

K. MICHAEL MOORE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants United States Department of Education ("DOE") and Secretary of Education's (collectively, "the Federal Defendants") Motion to Dismiss ("Federal Defs.’ Mot.") (ECF No. 44) and Memorandum in Support ("Mem. in Supp.") (ECF No. 44-1); Defendants Florida International University Board of Trustees ("FIU BOT"), Board of Governors for the State University System of Florida ("BOG"), Claudia Puig ("Puig"), Mark B. Rosenberg ("Rosenberg"), R. Alex Acosta ("Acosta"), Tawia Baidoe Ansah ("Ansah"), Joycelyn Brown ("Brown"), Rosario L. Schrier ("Schrier"), Thomas E. Baker ("Baker"), Scott F. Norberg ("Norberg"), Noah Weisbord ("Weisbord"), Marci Rosenthal ("Rosenthal"),¹ Ned C. Lautenbach ("Lautenbach"),² and Iris Elijah's ("Elijah") (collectively, "the State Defendants") Motion to Dismiss ("State Defs.’ Mot.") (ECF No. 47); and Defendant Howard Wasserman's ("Wasserman") Motion to Dismiss ("Def. Wasserman Mot.") (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff Christina McLaughlin ("Plaintiff") filed Responses in Opposition.³ ("Resp. to Federal Defs.’ Mot.") (ECF No. 52); ("Resp. to State Defs.’ Mot.") (ECF No. 53); ("Resp. to Def. Wasserman") (ECF No. 54). The Federal Defendants, the State Defendants, and Defendant Wasserman filed Replies. ("Federal Defs.’ Reply") (ECF No. 59); ("State Defs.’ Reply") (ECF No. 61); ("Def. Wasserman Reply") (ECF No. 60). The Motions are now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND⁴

In this action, Plaintiff alleges a myriad of constitutional violations against numerous defendants. See generally Am. Compl. Plaintiff, a Florida resident, was enrolled as a first-year law student ("1L year") at Florida International University ("FIU") Law during the 2016-2017 academic year. Id. ¶¶ 143–144. During her 1L year, Plaintiff was a candid supporter of the Republican party on social media. Id. ¶¶ 151–152. At a "Hillary Clinton for President" rally held at FIU in the Fall of 2016, "[i]t became plainly evident to all the surrounding classmates that [Plaintiff] was a Donald Trump supporter." Id. ¶¶ 153–156. Thereafter, Plaintiff "noted an almost immediate difference in attitude and behavior from classmates, professors, and FIU administration" and "FIU Law began an intentional hostile, discriminatory and retaliatory campaign" against Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 156–158. After former President Trump's inauguration, Plaintiff "felt threatened and stifled to voice any comments in support of President Trump for fear of further retaliatory action especially concerning grades." Id. ¶¶ 159–160. Plaintiff "felt unsafe to show any expression of her political allegiance such as wearing a ‘Trump/Pence’ shirt or hat because of the vitriol expressed by the law professors." Id. ¶ 161.

A brief overview of each named Defendant and the allegations against them follows:

1. The DOE "failed to timely and effectively process [Plaintiff's] FERPA⁵ complaint" and, as of the date of the Amended Complaint, "failed to make a finding for 952 days since the DOE was in receipt [of the complaint,] 779 days since the DOE sent a Notice of Investigation and 601 days since the DOE stated that the investigation was nearing completion." The DOE has "intentionally stalled making a determination of [Plaintiff's] complaint in order to prevent [Plaintiff] from filing suit within the statute of limitations." Id. ¶¶ 627–757.

2. The Secretary of Education is named as the recipient of several letters sent by Plaintiff. The Secretary of Education is sued in her official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 647–650, 725, 731.

3. The FIU BOT is the governing body of FIU and Puig is its Chair. The FIU BOT "defended, supported, and sanctioned all actions taken by professors, deans, employees, and agents referred to in [the Amended Complaint]." Each member of the FIU BOT is sued in their official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 164–174.

4. The BOG is the governing body of all public Florida universities, Lautenbach is its Chair, and Elijah served as its Assistant General Counsel. The BOG "defended, supported, and sanctioned all actions taken by professors, deans, employees and agents referred to in [the Amended Complaint]" and "failed to protect [Plaintiff], a lawfully matriculated student, from the nefarious acts committed by one of the Florida Universities." Elijah had an "excessively close relationship with FIU" and "knew or should have known to recuse herself from any participation, involvement, direction or control of [Plaintiff's] complaint." Each member of the BOG is sued in their official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 441–460.

5. Rosenberg is the President of FIU who (i) failed to redress Plaintiff's complaint; (ii) unfairly dismissed Plaintiff's request for a FERPA hearing; (iii) converted Plaintiff's FERPA challenge to a student grievance; and (iv) "victim shamed" Plaintiff—all of which was done "to conceal, divert, and cover-up the felonious acts committed by FIU Law professors." Rosenberg is sued in his official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 175–196.

6. Acosta is the Dean of FIU Law who either allowed or ignored law professors’ actions, which included (i) "using non-academic standards for grading"; (ii) "tampering with scantron tabulation"; and (iii) "unauthorized grade unblinding to fraudulently mis-record[ ] grades." Acosta is sued in his official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 197–210.

7. Ansah was FIU Law's interim Dean at the time of Plaintiff's academic dismissal, who Plaintiff characterizes as "a well-known out-spoken, anti-conservative, anti-Trump critic" and whose actions "demonstrate[ ] the depth of anti-Trump/anti-conservative ideology among Ansah and other FIU Law professors." Ansah (i) "failed to substantively respond to Plaintiff's reasonable attempts to learn about the readmission procedure and to have counsel present"; and (ii) "depicted [Plaintiff] as a failed 1L student without any mention of the fact that [Plaintiff] had not been placed on remediation or ever failed any class." Ansah is sued in his official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 211–229.

8. Brown was an interim FIU Law professor during the Spring 2017 semester who (i) "is a radical leftist who either belongs to or provides support for several radical leftist organizations"; (ii) gave Plaintiff a final grade of "C+"; (iii) told Plaintiff that her support for Donald Trump was "immoral"; (iv) told Plaintiff her assignments were downgraded rather than graded according to the rubric; and (v) "intentionally lowered [Plaintiff's] grades to retaliate and politically engineer the student body class." Brown is sued in her official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 230–267.

9. Schrier is an FIU Law professor who (i) gave Plaintiff a final grade of "B-"; (ii) "gave several ‘Feel the Bern’ speeches promoting socialism during regular classroom time"; (iii) "engaged in political indoctrination and attempted to sway the students to voting for the Democratic nominee"; (iv) gave Plaintiff lower academic grades and became "inhospitable" after learning about Plaintiff's support for President Trump and the Republican Party; (v) "used non-academic standards to grade [Plaintiff's] assignments"; (vi) participated in and voted to deny Plaintiff's readmission during her readmission hearing; and (vii) "discriminated and retaliated against [Plaintiff] because of her political beliefs." Schrier is sued in her official capacity.⁶Id. ¶¶ 317–339.

10. Baker is an FIU Law professor who (i) gave Plaintiff a final grade of "D"; (ii) "performed a skit demeaning Trump supporters" during class; (iii) "made his classroom a hostile educational environment and stifled [Plaintiff's] freedom of speech and political expression in his classroom"; (iv) after learning of Plaintiff's support for President Trump and the Republican Party, "graded her exam unblinded and failed to use anonymous grading to record [Plaintiff's] exam scores"; (v) "intentionally lowered [Plaintiff's] grades to retaliate and politically engineer the student body class"; (vi) "used non-academic standards to record [Plaintiff's] final grade"; (vii) "fraudulently tampered with [Plaintiff's] Scantron score to record a fraudulent exam score"; and (viii) "colluded with other professors to unlawfully expel" Plaintiff. Baker is sued in his official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 340–362.

11. Norberg is an FIU Law professor who (i) gave Plaintiff a final grade of "C"; (ii) "is a vocal anti-Trump leftist and used his classroom to espouse anti-Trump rhetoric"; (iii) "was one of 10 FIU Law professors to sign [an] anti-Trump/anti-Kavanaugh letter"; (iv) after learning of Plaintiff's support for Republican candidates, "developed animus for [Plaintiff] for her political beliefs"; (v) "erroneously ‘bumped down’ [Plaintiff's] final grade" from a "C+" to a "C" due to confusion over a missing assignment that Plaintiff had in fact turned in; (vi) "fraudulently tampered with Scantron exam scores"; (vii) "used non-academic standards to

...