Minto v. Molloy Coll.

• Decision Date: 26 September 2019
• Docket Number: 16-CV-278,16-CV-279(KAM)(GRB),16-CV-276
• Parties: JANICE MINTO, Plaintiff, v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants. DEBRA BACCHUS, Plaintiff, v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants. DYTRA SEWELL, Plaintiff, v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

JANICE MINTO, Plaintiff, v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.

DEBRA BACCHUS, Plaintiff, v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.

DYTRA SEWELL, Plaintiff, v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.

16-CV-276

16-CV-278

16-CV-279(KAM)(GRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 26, 2019

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs, three African American women formerly enrolled in defendant Molloy College's Respiratory Care Program ("RCP"), each brought separate actions against Molloy College, a professor, and various administrative employees of defendant Molloy College. (See ECF No. 1, Compl.¹) Each plaintiff respectively alleged race and gender discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, also known as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and New York's Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. Plaintiffs also alleged common law breach of contract claims and civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Criminal Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. Each plaintiff has withdrawn all claims against the individual college employees, see Russell v. County of Nassau, 696 F. Supp. 2d 213, 238 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ("Title VI claims cannot be asserted against an individual defendant because the individual is not the recipient of federal funds."), and their claims, if any, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1986.² (See ECF No. 21, Sewell Mem. in Opp. ("Opp.") 7.) Plaintiffs all withdrew their RICO claims against Molloy, as well. (ECF No. 28, Stip.)

Before the court are defendant Molloy's motions to dismiss each complaint, filed separately in each action. For the following reasons, defendant's motions are GRANTED, and plaintiffs' respective complaints are dismissed with leave to replead.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Allegations

The following facts are taken from plaintiffs' respective complaints. The complaints are remarkably similar, and few alleged facts are unique to a particular plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are African American women. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Each was enrolled in Molloy's RCP in 2012, (id. ¶ 11), though Minto was previously enrolled in Molloy's Nursing Program, (Minto Compl. ¶ 11). Each plaintiff is also older than a typical college student: Sewell and Bacchus are in their 50s, (Compl. ¶ 10), and Minto, is in her 70s, (Minto Compl. ¶ 10). Plaintiffs were all enrolled in an RCP course taught by Robert Tralongo, professor and program director for Molloy's RCP, during the Fall 2012 term. (Compl. ¶ 21; Bacchus Compl. ¶¶ 14, 18.)

Molloy's campus is situated in Nassau County on New York's Long Island. (Compl. ¶ 5.) In the fall of 2012, Long Island endured Hurricane Sandy with its attendant and well-known resulting damage to the region's infrastructure, and subsequentdisruption to transportation and power systems. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.) Molloy issued a notice to its students in the wake of Hurricane Sandy that "students would be given wide latitude in demonstrating competence" for that semester's courses.³ (Id. ¶ 16.) Contemporaneously, plaintiff Sewell's mother died the same day Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island, (Compl. ¶ 15), plaintiff Bacchus's Aunt died at around the same time, (Bacchus Compl. ¶ 14), and plaintiff Minto's mother was or would become seriously ill during the fall of 2012 and died in February 2013, (Minto Compl. ¶ 15).

Each plaintiff received a grade of "C" or lower in one or more RCP courses during the Fall 2012 semester. (Compl. ¶ 21.) The complaints allege that Molloy's course catalog states that Molloy requires RCP students attain a grade of "C+" or higher in each RCP course. (Compl. ¶ 22; Minto Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs had each previously repeated two RCP courses. (See, e.g., ECF No. 20-2, McGrath Decl., Ex. 2, Sewell Ac. Tr.) No plaintiff was informed during the Fall 2012 semester that she was on academic probation or in danger of being expelled from RCP for academic deficiencies. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiffs' grades were posted on December 19, 2012, prior to Molloy'swinter break. (Id. ¶ 23.) Upon receiving their grades, plaintiffs individually attempted to contact Professor Tralongo to discuss their respective grades, though he was not available until the Spring 2013 semester. (Compl. ¶ 25.) While on winter break, no plaintiff received notification she was being expelled from RCP. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Plaintiffs attempted to register for classes on January 17, 2013, the first day classes resumed for the Spring semester, but first needed approval from former-defendant Donna Fitzgerald, Chairperson of RCP. (Id. ¶ 27.) Fitzgerald told plaintiffs, individually, they were expelled from RCP, though Sewell first paid an outstanding tuition bill of $5,000. (Compl. ¶27, n.2.) Sewell and Minto then individually met their advisor, Professor Lasandra Haynes, (id. ¶ 28), and Bacchus sought to speak with Associate Dean of RCP,⁴ and former defendant, Mary Jane Reilly, the same day. (Bacchus Compl. ¶ 21-22.) Haynes also suggested Sewell and Minto see Reilly. (Compl. ¶ 28.) On either January 17 or 18, 2013, each plaintiff met individually with Reilly, and were told that because they each had "repeated more than one class," in accordance with RCP's rules, they were "ineligible to continue in the program" and that their time to appeal their respective grades hadexpired. (Id. ¶ 29.) Each plaintiff inquired with Reilly of other degree options at Molloy, but each was informed that she could not transfer any earned credits from RCP to another program she was interested in. (Id. ¶ 31.)

All plaintiffs allege certain Caucasian or male students in RCP were "routinely permitted to repeat courses beyond the stated limit" in Molloy's Course Catalog. (Id. ¶ 34.) Sewell further alleges she received no latitude in the wake of Hurricane Sandy from any of her professors, or from Tralongo, RCP's Director, though non-African American males did receive such latitude for difficulties they experienced as a result of Hurricane Sandy. (Id. ¶ 17-18.)

Plaintiffs also allege that Molloy represented that each plaintiff "would not be treated in a discriminatory fashion based upon her race, color, ethnic background or gender" through its "written college policies, publicized [by] the college catalog, student conduct manual and other means." (Id. ¶ 43.) Similarly, Molloy implemented and publicized "rules and procedures for maintaining academic standing in the" RCP, upon which each plaintiff relied. (Id. ¶ 44.) Defendant Molloy, however, modified these policies to the benefit of certain other students, allowing them "to retake courses as many times as necessary in order to pass the course and graduate from" RCP.(Id. ¶ 45.) Plaintiffs were "denied th[is] opportunity," by Tralongo and Molloy. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 54.)

Tralongo carried out this practice, of permitting "[s]tudents who are not African American or women[,] who did not pass more than one course" to repeatedly take these and other courses until they passed and graduated, "with the knowledge, cooperation, and permission of the other [former] defendants." (Id. ¶¶ 54, 61.) Further, all former defendants "knew that Professor Trolongo (sic) had deliberately absented himself from access to plaintiff[s]" and other students immediately after grades posted on December 19, 2012; the former defendants knew Tralongo did this to prevent plaintiffs from appealing their grades. (Id. ¶ 62.) Plaintiffs also allege that Molloy and the former defendants "planned to expel the plaintiff[s] . . . from the RCP," and "conspired to withhold" the fact that plaintiffs would be expelled from the program after the time to appeal had expired. (Id. ¶¶ 63-64.)

II. Procedural History

It is important to describe the procedural posture of the three separate cases, and the history of plaintiffs' representation by counsel, as it bears on some of the court's analysis below. Plaintiffs, all represented by the same attorney, each initiated their respective actions on January 19, 2016, by filing a complaint. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1, Compl.)Each plaintiff also attached proposed summonses. (ECF No. 1-2.) These summonses, however, were rejected by the Clerk of Court on January 20, 2019, and counsel for plaintiffs was "advised to submit another proposed summons." (Docket Entry dated Jan. 20, 2016.) Counsel did not file a revised proposed summons in any of the three cases until May 16, 2016.⁵ Summons issued as to each defendant on May 17, 2016, (ECF No. 5), defendants were served the same day, (ECF No. 10), and defendants appeared on June 6, 2016, (ECF No. 6).

Defendant Molloy and the former defendants served a motion to dismiss on plaintiffs on June 7, 2016, (ECF No. 8), which motion was fully-briefed and filed on September 20, 2016, (ECF No. 17). The parties then stipulated to the dismissal of all claims against the individual defendants and of certain claims against Molloy College. (ECF No. 28.)

Plaintiffs' counsel was then suspended from practice for six months, which term commenced on August 4, 2017; the court administratively closed the matter for nine months and denied without prejudice remaining defendant Molloy's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 39, Minute Order.) Plaintiffs' counselinformed the court by letter filed April 26, 2018, that, although his term of suspension had expired, he was the subject of an additional disciplinary grievance and a client financial dispute that would not be resolved until later in 2018. (ECF No. 40, Pls.' Ltr.) He thus requested the court extend the stay in the instant cases until August 1, 2018. (Id.) All three cases were then reassigned to the undersigned on May 1, 2018, plaintiffs' counsel's request was denied, and the cases were reopened on May 8, 2018. (Docket Order dated May 8, 2018.) Plaintiffs were permitted leave to retain new counsel by July 31, 2018, or inform the court that they intended to proceed pro se. (Minute Entry dated June 26, 2018.) On August 2, 2018, however, defendant informed the court that no new counsel had contacted its counsel...