Morrow v. Auburn University at Montgomery, Civil Action No. 96-C-273-N.
| Decision Date | 18 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 96-C-273-N. |
| Citation | 973 F.Supp. 1392 |
| Parties | Angela C. MORROW, Plaintiff, v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY AT MONTGOMERY and Dr. Thomas Denton, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
James Mendelsohn, Amy W. Sinnott, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Birmingham, AL, for Angela C. Morrow.
Leslie McCafferty Allen, David R. Boyd, Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, AL, Lee F. Armstrong, Auburn University, AL, for Auburn University at Montgomery.
Henry Clay Barnett, Jr., Christopher W. Weller, Capell, Howard, Knabe & Cobbs, P.A., Montgomery, AL, for Thomas Denton, Dr.
Plaintiff, Angela Morrow, commenced this action against Auburn University at Montgomery ("AUM") and Thomas Denton, Ph.D. alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and state law claims for assault, business tort and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to adverse employment decisions and a hostile work environment because of her gender and in retaliation for complaining about the harassment that she suffered. Specifically, plaintiff contends that she was denied promotion and appointment to a tenured position at AUM and was subjected to offensive and unprofessional treatment by defendant Denton.1 Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
Defendants AUM and Denton moved for summary judgment on February 18, 1997. After several requests from the parties for extensions of time and leave to supplement the record, the motions were set for submission on June 29, 1997.2 For the reasons state below, the court finds that the motions are due to be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff joined the faculty at AUM as a part-time instructor in the Biology Department in September, 1979. She continued to serve in that position until the end of the 1981-82 academic year. Plaintiff then left AUM to teach at a high school. Plaintiff had applied for an advertised position for full time instructor of Biology at AUM on May 5, 1982 but later withdrew from the process.3
Plaintiff returned to AUM as a part-time biology instructor for the 1984 Winter Quarter.4 Defendant Denton became the head of AUM's Biology Department in 1987 and was plaintiff's supervisor when she was appointed as a full time temporary instructor for the 1989-1990 academic year in August, 1989.5 In December, 1990, plaintiff signed a Notice of Acceptance of Appointment for her full time temporary instructor position.6 Among the provisions in the notice is the following:
Faculty with the rank of "Instructor" are expected to demonstrate their qualifications for promotion within three to five years of service. Instructors are not eligible for tenure, and all persons at this rank are appointed on a Temporary basis.
While teaching at AUM plaintiff also participated in a number of research and writing projects with professors in the Biology Department. In 1991, plaintiff accepted the duties of coordinator of Biology 101 in addition to her teaching responsibilities. Plaintiff also began pursuing her doctorate in 1992 at Auburn University while she continued her full time duties as an instructor. Plaintiff avers that the only reason she began her doctoral studies was because Denton informed her that in order to be considered for tenure she at least had to be working on her terminal degree.7 Plaintiff also alleges that she later asked Denton what she needed to do to prepare for tenure and his response was that she only needed to apply.8
In October, 1993, plaintiff met with the Dean of the School of Sciences, Joseph Hill for an informal discussion about applying for tenure.9 According to plaintiff, at that time she learned that she was classified as a temporary employee and that in that classification she was not eligible for promotion or tenure.10 Plaintiff had not received another letter of contract or notice of appointment since she became a full time temporary instructor in 1989. Sometime after her meeting with Hill, Denton spoke to plaintiff about her pursuing tenure. Plaintiff describes Denton as being aggravated and chastising because she discussed the matter with Hill.11 Plaintiff also maintains that at that time Denton offered vague criticism about her work and advised her that she needed to work on her charm "as only [she] could do" with her colleagues, and that if she did not get tenure she would not have a problem finding another job with her Ph.D. and waistline.12 Denton maintains that he merely informed plaintiff that her rapport with the faculty and students was diminishing and that she needed to work on this.13 Denton also denies that he made any comment about plaintiff's figure and states that he merely pointed out that having a Ph.D. would be an advantage to obtaining a job at any university.14
Plaintiff also contends that Denton continued to make comments about her figure and weight loss in the Spring of 1994. There was an incident that plaintiff refers to as "playing footsie" that occurred in the hallway in front of two other professors.15 Denton attempted to step on plaintiff's "little white tennis shoes." One of the professors present described the incident as "cutesy," like a parent teasing a child.16 Plaintiff says that the situation made her uncomfortable and was so disconcerting that she discussed the matter with Hill.17
Hill met with plaintiff on April 26, 1994. During that meeting plaintiff discussed her frustration about the tenure process, whether she would be retained for the following school year and Denton's harassing behavior toward her.18 According to plaintiff, Hill advised her that she was not the only person to complain about inappropriate behavior by Denton.19 While Hill confirms that plaintiff discussed her harassment problem with him, Hill denies that he told plaintiff that he had received complaints from other women about Denton. Hill advised plaintiff that her allegation was serious and she should file a formal charge with the EEO Officer. Hill did speak to Denton, as he told plaintiff he would, and advised Denton that he needed to be more cognizant of his conduct toward plaintiff and that AUM did not and would not tolerate any harassment of its staff members.20 In response to an inquiry conducted by AUM's EEO Officer later in the year, Denton did not recall the incident.21
In May, 1994, Denton polled the professorial faculty in the Biology Department for a statement on appointing plaintiff to probationary status, the first step to put her on the tenure track.22 Two faculty members recommended placing plaintiff on probationary status, six voted against changing plaintiff's status. One faculty member did not respond. Among those who did not support changing plaintiff's status a prevalent concern was that the manner in which plaintiff was hired did not follow appropriate procedures, particularly, that the appointment that she received in 1989 was not pursuant to an advertised national search.23 Only one colleague made a negative comment about plaintiff's teaching performance. Denton advised Hill of the results of the faculty poll and recommended that she remain at AUM as a temporary biology instructor for the 1994-95 school year instead of being converted to probationary status.24 On July 15, 1994, plaintiff was notified that she would maintain her position as a full time temporary instructor for the 1994-95 school year.25 When plaintiff questioned Hill about why she was not given probationary status he informed her that he was unable to give her any further information. Plaintiff did not receive the faculty polling statements. At that time plaintiff also requested information about her employment status for the 1995-96 academic year. Hill advised her that he felt that she would be employed for that year and that she would be notified formally in November 1994.26 Plaintiff was notified in October, 1994, that she would be contracted as a Temporary Instructor for Biology for the 1995-96 school year.27 This offer was confirmed by Hill in May, 1995. At that time, Hill also advised plaintiff that her appointment would remain as temporary instructor and that an appointment for the 1995-1996 academic year would be the final year of her appointment because at that time she would have reached the maximum period allowable that she could serve at AUM.28
After being advised that her status would not be changed to probationary, plaintiff met with the president of the Auburn University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (hereinafter referred to as "AAUP"), Josef Renden, in August, 1994, to discuss the circumstances related to her attaining tenure and being harassed by Denton.29 On October 13, 1994, plaintiff advised Bruce Gordon, Co-Chair of AUM's Faculty Grievance Committee that she was filing a formal grievance against Denton. Plaintiff's complaint charged the following:
... Dr. Denton is guilty of unfair and wrong [sic] use of procedures in matters concerning nonrenewal of appointments and nomination for tenure and promotion, administrative mishandling of performance evaluations and other working conditions, and improper and unethical activities, including without limitation, misrepresentation of material fact, fraud, deceit, suppression of material fact, failure to honor commitments, sexual discrimination, and harassment.30
A grievance hearing was scheduled for January 6, 1996. After conferring with counsel, however, plaintiff decided not to proceed with the grievance hearing.31
Plaintiff also had filed a formal complaint of sexual harassment against Denton with the AUM's EEO officer Rose Shook on November 11, 1994.32 Shook's investigation of plaintiff's charges included interviewing plaintiff, Denton,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malone v. K-Mart Corp.
...Generally, Alabama federal district courts have found such claims to constitute continuing violations. See Morrow v. Auburn Univ. at Montgomery, 973 F.Supp. 1392 (M.D.Ala.1997); Patterson, 944 F.Supp. at 1509; Quillen v. American Tobacco Co., 874 F.Supp. 1285 (M.D.Ala.1995); Saville v. Hous......
-
Taylor v. Alabama
...on discreet acts but are supported by plaintiff establishing an ongoing pattern of offensive conduct." Morrow v. Auburn Univ. at Montgomery, 973 F.Supp. 1392, 1401 (M.D.Ala.1997). Because the court finds that Plaintiff has alleged a continuing violation, Harris and the State Defendants' Mot......
-
Frazier v. Smith
...that a hostile environment existed, she alleges that the hostile environment was a continuing violation. See Morrow v. Auburn Univ., 973 F.Supp. 1392, 1401 (M.D.Ala.1997) (holding that a claim of hostile work environment is a continuing violation because it involves a pattern of offensive c......
-
Ren v. University of Cent. Florida Bd. of Trustees
...situated when examined for tenure by a different supervisor and under more stringent standards); cf. Morrow v. Auburn Univ. at Montgomery, 973 F.Supp. 1392, 1406-07 (M.D.Ala.1997) (finding that plaintiff had established a similarly situated comparator when both faculty members were from the......