Mitchell v. Winston-Salem State Univ.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2020
• Docket Number: 1:19CV130
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: ALVIN MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. WINSTON-SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY, ELWOOD ROBINSON, CAROLYNN BERRY, and IVEY BROWN, Defendants.

ALVIN MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. WINSTON-SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY, ELWOOD ROBINSON, CAROLYNN BERRY, and IVEY BROWN, Defendants.

1:19CV130

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

March 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OSTEEN, JR., District Judge

Plaintiff Alvin Mitchell brings seven state-law claims and one federal claim against Defendants Winston-Salem State University¹ ("WSSU"), Elwood Robinson, Carolynn Berry, and Ivey Brown. (Doc. 6.) Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 13.)

For the reasons set forth herein, the court will grant Defendants' motion with regard to Plaintiff's § 1983 due processclaim and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. The court will dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On a motion to dismiss, a court must "accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint . . . ." Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016)). The facts, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, are as follows.

A. Factual Background

1. Parties

Plaintiff is a citizen of North Carolina. (Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") (Doc. 6) ¶ 1.) Defendant WSSU is a "constituent institution of the University of North Carolina established pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-4." (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant Elwood Robinson is the Chancellor of WSSU. (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendant Carolynn Berry was the Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs during the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant Ivey Brown is General Counsel for WSSU. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants Robinson, Berry, and Brown (together, "Individual Defendants") are all employed by WSSU. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.)

2. Plaintiff's Employment with WSSU

Plaintiff was hired as an Associate Professor in WSSU's Department of Social Sciences in July 2006 and was granted tenure in December 2008. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.)

Between the summer of 2007 and the summer of 2017, Plaintiff "consistently" taught summer courses at WSSU, teaching on average three or four courses. (Id. ¶ 19, 22-23.) Plaintiff taught these summer courses as an associate professor "under a separate, supplemental, teaching contract," under which he earned supplemental pay. (Id. ¶ 22, 24-25.)

3. Plaintiff's Suspension and Dismissal

On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff received a Notice for Imposition of Serious Sanction (the "Dismissal Letter") from Defendant Berry. (Id. ¶ 25.) "The Dismissal Letter notified Plaintiff that he would immediately be placed on 'suspension with pay.'" (Id. ¶ 26.) The Dismissal Letter also "notified Plaintiff of his right to appeal the recommendation for dismissal, but it did not provide a right to appeal the suspension." (Id. ¶ 28.) "The last two sentences of the Dismissal Letter provide[d]: 'Your suspension with pay will terminate with the exhaustion of your appeal rights. Please refer to the Faculty Handbook and The Code of the University of North Carolina Board of Governors [("the Code")] for more information.'" (Id. ¶ 33.)

The Dismissal Letter stated several reasons for Plaintiff's suspension and dismissal.² Defendant Berry, in the Dismissal Letter, accused Plaintiff of failing to open an online course for the 2017-2018 academic year, despite Plaintiff's department chair asking him to do so. (Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Br.") (Doc. 14) Ex. A, Dismissal Letter (Doc. 14-1) at 1.) Plaintiff also allegedly gave a student an Incomplete grade. (Id. at 2.) The student allegedly turned in the assignments to complete the requirements, but Plaintiff failed to respond, resulting in the student receiving an F, which impacted the student's financial aid and his ability to register for classes the following semester. (Id.)

Further, Plaintiff allegedly refused to respond to his department chairs regarding this matter, which required them to address Plaintiff in person. (Id.) Allegedly, "University Police was called due to safety concerns related to the hostile and erratic behavior that was displayed on this date." (Id.)Finally, Defendant Berry accused Plaintiff of unprofessional interactions, including sending "derogatory and racially charged communications to one of [his] department chairs." (Id.)

Plaintiff submitted his notice of appeal on September 9, 2017. (Am Compl. ¶ 34.)

4. WSSU Surveillance Videos

Plaintiff's attorney requested surveillance footage regarding the on-campus incident involving Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) WSSU did not produce the footage, and Plaintiff alleges Defendant Brown "provided contradicting explanations for why the footage was not produced, by erroneously stating that there were no cameras inside the building and later saying that the relevant footage had been taped over." (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff alleges this footage would have assisted Plaintiff in presenting his case to the WSSU Faculty Hearing Committee (the "Faculty Committee"). (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.)

5. Faculty Committee Hearing and Plaintiff's Appeal

The Faculty Committee held a hearing on Plaintiff's suspension on January 10, 2018. (Id. ¶ 44.) The Faculty Committee "unanimously determined that WSSU failed to meet its burden of proof to show by 'clear and convincing' evidence that sufficient grounds existed to support Plaintiff's dismissal," and "recommended Chancellor Robinson not accept the recommendation for Plaintiff's dismissal." (Id. ¶¶ 45-46.)

Defendant Robinson reviewed the Committee's recommendation, "disagreed that WSSU failed to meet its burden of proof, and on January 30, 2018, asked the Faculty Committee to reconvene the hearing to take evidence from Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 47.) On February 14, 2018, "Plaintiff notified the Faculty Committee that he had no further evidence to present," after expressing concerns that Defendant Robinson was violating procedures set out in the Code. (Id. ¶ 48.) The following day, the "Faculty Committee unanimously renew[ed] its recommendation to the Chancellor that Plaintiff not be dismissed." (Id. ¶ 49.) Defendant Robinson renewed his decision to dismiss Plaintiff on March 7, 2018. (Id. ¶ 50.)

Plaintiff appealed Defendant Robinson's recommendation to the WSSU Board of Trustees on March 20, 2018. (Id. ¶ 51.) On April 5, 2018, and April 11, 2018, the Vice Chancellor sent Plaintiff procedural instructions for his appeal. (Id. ¶ 52.) Plaintiff submitted his objections to the proposed record on appeal to the Board of Trustees, though Plaintiff alleged he never received a response concerning the objections. (Id. ¶ 53.)

The Board of Trustees notified Plaintiff on August 6, 2018, that it was upholding Defendant Robinson's dismissal recommendation. "The letter stated that the Board of Trustee's decision was made based on 'the written transcript and the related exhibits,' rather than the entire record." (Id. ¶ 54.)The letter further stated, "This decision is final, except you may file by formal notice a written petition for review with the Board of Governors . . . [a] copy of § IX of the WSSU Faculty Handbook, which details your appeal rights, is enclosed." (Id. ¶ 57.)

Plaintiff appealed the Board of Trustees' decision on August 21, 2018, "to the UNC Board of Governors following the procedures set out in the WSSU Faculty Handbook and Section 603 of the Code." (Id. ¶ 58.)

"Plaintiff's pay ended after August 2018." (Id. ¶ 65.) Plaintiff did not receive any notice that his pay would end. (Id. ¶ 67.) Plaintiff alleges WSSU processed Plaintiff's dismissal, even though "his appeal [was] still pending before the Board of Governors." (Id. ¶ 94.) "[A]round this time WSSU also started informing people that Plaintiff was 'dismissed,'" and Plaintiff's information was removed from the WSSU online faculty listings. (Id. ¶¶ 81-82.)

On May 23, 2019, the Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of its Committee on Personnel and Tenure andupheld Plaintiff's discharge.³ (Joint Status Report (Doc. 19) at 1.) Plaintiff appealed the Board of Governor's decision on June 24, 2019, by filing a petition for judicial review in Forsyth County Superior Court under Article 4 of North Carolina's Administrative Procedures Act. (Id.) The Board of Governors moved to stay Plaintiff's petition based on the issues raised in the present action. (Id. at 2.) The Forsyth County Superior Court granted the Board of Governors' motion until this court's final disposition. (Id.; Doc. 20-1 at 1-2.)

6. Alleged Problems with Plaintiff's Appeal Process

Plaintiff raises several issues regarding his appeal process.

Regarding his suspension, Plaintiff alleges "WSSU is only authorized to use suspension as an 'exceptional' remedy." (Am. Compl. (Doc. 6) ¶ 27.) He alleges that the Dismissal Letter "did not provide[] notice of the 'exceptional' grounds that WSSU alleged made suspension appropriate." (Id. ¶ 29.)

Defendant Berry allegedly "did not gather any information from Plaintiff prior to delivering the Dismissal Letter in orderto determine if there were exceptional circumstances meriting suspension." (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff further alleges that "there was no discussion about whether Plaintiff should be reassigned in lieu of suspension." (Id. ¶ 31.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Berry and/or Robinson "failed to appropriately exercise her or his discretion by summarily suspending Plaintiff without exceptional cause." (Id. ¶ 32.)

He further alleges that there were "procedural inconsistencies among the letters Plaintiff received from the Board of Trustees on April 5, April 11, and August 6." (Id. ¶ 55.) In particular, "Plaintiff was informed in one letter that the Grievance Committee would be reviewing his appeal while another letter stated the Appeals Committee would be making the determination," and Plaintiff alleges "it is unclear if the Board of Trustees voted on the recommendation for Plaintiff's dismissal." (Id. ¶¶ 55-56.)

Next, "[o]n ...