Mitchell v. Univ. of N. Ala.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:16-cv-00102-HNJ |
| Parties | AUDREY DELORES MITCHELL, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
This action proceeds before the court on defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 30). Defendant directs the motion to plaintiff's third amended complaint and the addition thereto. (Docs. 14 & 15). Plaintiff also filed additional allegations on August 3, 2018 (Doc. 47), which the court considers as part of her pleadings for purposes of this motion. For the reasons set out herein, the court GRANTS Defendant's motion.
A party may move for judgment on the pleadings only after the pleadings are closed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "Judgment on the pleadings is proper when no issues of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts." Interline Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). In determining whether a defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, courts must "accept all the facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Id. The court treats the factual allegations in the non-moving party's pleadings as true, and takes as true those moving party allegations which do not conflict with the non-moving party's pleadings. If denied, the court deems the moving party's allegations false. Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998). If comparison of the averments in the pleadings reveals a material dispute of fact, the court must deny judgment on the pleadings. Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1335 (11th Cir. 2014).
In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts apply the same standards as applied to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Strategic Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n.8 (11th Cir. 2002). A court must grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings if, "on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action." Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cnty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, to avoid the granting of judgment on the pleadings, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). "Dismissal is not appropriate unless the complaint lacks sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim for relief that allows the court to draw areasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct." Jiles v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 413 F. App'x 173, 174 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007)).
Plaintiff Audrey Mitchell, an African-American female, formerly served as the University of North Alabama's (UNA) Director of Environmental Services and Housing Facilities Management.1 UNA originally hired Mitchell as Coordinator of Administration in the Department of Housing and Residence Life on August 9, 1999. UNA named Mitchell Interim Director of Housing and Residence Life in 2004, choosing her over Kevin Jacques (Caucasian), who served as Associate Director of Residence Life. Jacques reported to Mitchell when she served as Interim Director. After UNA promoted Mitchell over him, Jacques undermined Mitchell and reported anything to their supervisor, Thomas Lovett (Caucasian), which Jacques believed may result in discipline for Mitchell. However, Lovett never verbally reprimanded her or disciplined her in writing.
UNA hired David Shields (Caucasian) in 2006 as Vice President of Student Affairs. After his hire, Shields split the Housing and Residence Life Department into the Department of Housing and the Department of Residence Life. He named Jacques as Director of Residence Life and Mitchell as Director of Housing. Jacquesreported alleged issues with Mitchell to Shields, and Mitchell had to respond to the allegations and refute them. Mitchell alleges Shields and Jacques schemed together to look for any possible mistake by Mitchell and treated Mitchell more harshly than her Caucasian counterparts.
As an example of this alleged unequal treatment, Mitchell recounts an incident occurring during the Summer and Fall 2009 semesters. Mitchell submitted a purchase order to Cindy Conlon's office for replacement furniture for a student apartment; Conlon (Caucasian) approved the purchase order. After delivery of the furniture, Mitchell realized she omitted a dinette set. She submitted a purchase order for a dinette set. However, Conlon advised Mitchell she could not make the purchase without a bid and Conlon's previous approval for purchase of the other furniture constituted a mistake, against bidding law, and she should not have approved it. Conlon instructed Mitchell to request a disbursement from the Controller's office. Donna Tipps (Caucasian), the Controller at that time, returned the disbursement request to Mitchell and admonished her for submitting it. Mitchell emailed Tipps, with a copy to Conlon, advising Conlon directed her to submit the requisition to Tipps.
In May or June 2010, Shields contacted Mitchell about reports he received that Mitchell authorized donating UNA furniture to students. Mitchell denied the allegations and asked Shields to speak to Assistant Director of Housing Jimmy Waddell (Caucasian). When Shields spoke with Waddell, he first informed Waddell he was notattempting to "get" anyone, in particular Mitchell. Waddell related to Shields that several Resident Assistants and two professional staff members approached him about obtaining old furniture which UNA was discarding; Waddell allowed them to retrieve some couches. Waddell also allowed an indigent family to obtain two couches. Waddell informed Shields he did so without Mitchell's knowledge or approval. Approximately a week later, Shields asked Waddell to document the incident. Waddell submitted written documentation on June 24, 2010. Waddell never received any reprimand or other disciplinary action for this incident, despite violating UNA policy. Mitchell believes Shields wanted Waddell to implicate Mitchell; when Waddell denied Mitchell had any knowledge of the incident, Shields abandoned the matter.
On July 14, 2010, Mitchell met with Shields and Director of Human Resources and Affirmative Action Catherine White (Caucasian). At the meeting, Mitchell received an official reprimand letter and a $3,000 salary reduction for that year for authorizing replacement of a student's stolen property rather than requiring the student to submit the request to the State Board of Adjusters. The complaint originated from Conlon.2 Mitchell claims White advised her to file any appeal with UNA President William Cale (Caucasian). Cale and Shields previously worked at the same institution.
Mitchell appealed the disciplinary action to Cale on July 18, 2010. She provided over 20 exhibits to her six-page appeal designed to demonstrate to Cale that Mitchell suffered discrimination and harassment, including the incident with Conlon and Tipps. Mitchell avers Conlon asked Cale to reprimand Mitchell for her actions regarding the furniture. Mitchell contends Shields and White knew Cale should not decide her appeal because of his involvement in effecting her discipline, yet they concealed this fact from Mitchell. Cale failed to meet with Mitchell about her appeal or investigate her claims, and he provided Mitchell's documentation to Shields but failed to provide her with documents Shields supplied to Cale.
A hearing on Mitchell's appeal convened August 6, 2010. A participant referred to a letter Shields submitted to Cale concerning his findings during an investigation, which Shields had not provided to Mitchell. Hearing chair Tom Osborne (Caucasian) stopped the hearing to provide Mitchell a copy of the letter; however, Mitchell did not have time to read it because the hearing reconvened as soon as she received a copy. Mitchell had to respond to the contents of the letter at the hearing, without preparation. During the hearing, White advised that she, Shields, Cale, and Vice President Steve Smith (Caucasian) decided Mitchell's sanction, and Cale gave final approval. The appeal committee suggested other options for Mitchell's discipline, yet Cale opted toimpose the original sanctions and probation. Mitchell claims she provided proof that Conlon violated policy by approving the initial replacement furniture purchase, yet UNA took no disciplinary action against her. She also asserts the mistreatment and harassment she experienced stemmed from Shields' desire to create a reason to terminate her or force her resignation.
Mitchell faults Cale for failing to meet with her about the documentation she provided; instead, Cale directed her in a letter to meet with Shields to work out their differences. However, when Director of Student Conduct and Assessments Kimberly Greenway (Caucasian), who also reported to Shields, expressed issues with Shields, Cale met with her and provided advice. Cale then met with Shields, and Shields subsequently apologized to Greenway.
After the pay reduction, Mitchell documented every interaction and endeavored to ensure her decisions and processes exceeded her Caucasian counterparts. She dreaded meeting with Shields because he demeaned her actions and questioned her judgment. Shields credited Jacques over Mitchell, despite Mitchell providing proof Jacques acted incorrectly. At one point, Greenway reported to Shields that Mitchell had been off work more than usual due to family illness, and thus, Mitchell believed officials watched her attendance more closely...
To continue reading
Request your trial