Mosley v. Houston Community College System, Civil Action No. H-93-2457.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-93-2457. |
| Citation | 951 F.Supp. 1279 |
| Parties | Ruby MOSLEY, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Laurence Wade Watts, Watts & Associates, Houston, TX, for Ruby Mosley.
Arturo Gabriel Michel, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, TX, for Houston Community College.
The Court has before it five motions: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Original Complaint [Doc. # 46], filed November 2, 1995, which Defendants oppose as untimely; Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Doc. # 53]; Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 13], filed August 12, 1994 (hereinafter "1994 Motion"), to which plaintiff has not responded; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 29], filed May 12, 1995 (hereinafter "1995 Motion"), to which Plaintiff has responded and Defendants replied; and, Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Testimony [Doc. # 42], filed September 29, 1995, to which plaintiff has not responded.
The Court has considered the above motions, the relevant responses and replies, all other matters of record in this case, and the applicable authorities. In the Order of March 31, 1996 [Doc. # 55], this Court ordered as follows:
• Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Original Complaint [Doc. # 46] is DENIED;
• Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Doc. # 53] is DENIED;
• Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 13] is GRANTED;
• Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 29] is GRANTED; and,
• Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Testimony [Doc. # 42] is DENIED AS MOOT.
This memorandum opinion provides the reasoning underlying the Court's order.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 12, 1993, alleging race discrimination and retaliation by the Houston Community College System ("HCCS"); Charles Green, former Chancellor of HCCS; James Engle, President of the HCCS Central Campus ("Central"), where Plaintiff worked at the time of the commencement of the events giving rise to this action; Maya Durnovo, Dean of Students/Administration; Pat Williamson, Vice Chancellor of Student Services; Maude Ferguson, Associate Vice Chancellor of Support Services; and, Diana Castillo, Assistant Dean of Central. Plaintiff specifically asserts claims for denial of equal protection and due process of law in violation of the federal and state constitutions,1 as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, claiming harassment and disparate treatment in employment transfers and disciplinary procedures. She also alleges that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her liberty interest to be free from punishment and retaliation, and of her property interest in continued employment as a counselor at Central. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants are not entitled to any form of immunity since they acted intentionally, with bad faith and/or conscious disregard of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
By Motion filed November 2, 1995, Plaintiff seeks to file a First Amended Complaint alleging additionally that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because of her exercise of fundamental rights to free expression, privacy, and free speech and association, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
The parties have engaged in discovery that has included the depositions of Plaintiff and most of the Defendants (all that Plaintiff has sought), plus the production of documents. Various courtesies have been extended by counsel to each other to accommodate their and their clients' respective schedules. This case has been pending for well over two years and more than adequate time for discovery has occurred. No party has contended in connection with any of the pending motions that there is a need for additional discovery.
Plaintiff, an African-American, alleges in her Original Complaint that during the years 1991 to 1993, she was discriminated against on the basis of race. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Charles Green, James Engle, Maya Durnovo, Diana Castillo, Patricia Williamson, and Maude Ferguson each subjected her to intentional discrimination on the basis of her race. The following allegations make up Plaintiff's claim of racial discrimination:
• In April 1991, Plaintiff was interviewed by James Engle for a possible promotion to the position of Assistant Dean of Students; however, despite "her qualifications and an outstanding interview" she did not receive the promotion.
• Beginning in 1991, Maya Durnovo harassed Plaintiff through Plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Diana Castillo.
• In January 1992, Durnovo removed Plaintiff from her position as a part-time campus director under the pretense that part-time campus directors were no longer needed.
• In January 1992, Castillo informed Plaintiff that she was being assigned to a new position working with special student populations; Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the move was in fact a demotion, and consequently was not reassigned.
• In January 1992, Castillo and Durnovo harassed Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's refusal to be reassigned.
• In March 1992, the college refused to pay for Plaintiff's trip to a Phi Theta Kappa (PTK) promotional seminar in Washington D.C.; Engle stated to Plaintiff that she was not being given financial assistance because PTK should have a white advisor.
• In March 1992, Plaintiff had a conference call with Charles Green to discuss the alleged treatment she had been receiving from Durnovo, Castillo, and Engle; Green told Plaintiff that he would remedy the situation but did nothing.
• From May 1992 until August 1992, Plaintiff was ill due to her stressful work environment; Castillo falsely accused Plaintiff of faking her illness and harassed her during her leave of absence by attempting to contact her.
• On August 1, 1992, upon her return to work, Plaintiff was transferred to the Jackson Hill office under the supervision of Maude Ferguson; Plaintiff appears to allege that this transfer was an involuntary demotion and was racially motivated, and that Green and Pat Williamson were responsible for the transfer.
• In early 1993, Ferguson unreasonably criticized Plaintiff and set her up for termination by inducing an adult student to write a false complaint against Plaintiff, and then placing Plaintiff on a ninety (90) day probation based on this complaint.
See Plaintiff's Original Complaint [Doc. # 1]; Plaintiff's proposed First Amended Original Complaint [Doc. # 47];2 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 40] (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Response");3 Mosley Affidavit (Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Response). The factual allegations regarding the Defendants, respectively, are detailed below.
Plaintiff alleges that in January 1992, Maya Durnovo removed her from her position as a part-time campus director, under the pretense that part-time campus directors were no longer needed.4 Mosley Affidavit (Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Response), at ¶ 8. Plaintiff asserts that two non-blacks, Cid Cruz and David Bemis,5 continued to serve as campus directors, id., but offers no evidence to support this assertion. Plaintiff does not explicitly state that her removal was racially motivated.
Plaintiff further alleges that, beginning in 1991 when Durnovo became her supervisor, Durnovo began harassing her through Castillo, her immediate supervisor. Original Complaint, at 5. She also alleges that, because she had refused to be reassigned to another position in January 1992, Durnovo and Castillo harassed her by sending endless memoranda on an almost daily basis which generally were in reference to insignificant matters or incidents that had not taken place. Mosley Affidavit, at ¶ 9.6
Durnovo's affidavit states that she eliminated all of the part-time campus director positions in order to save money. Durnovo Affidavit (Exhibit H to 1995 Motion), at ¶ 3. Furthermore, Defendants have proffered evidence that Bemis was appointed to the position of facilities director and took over the functions formerly performed by the part-time campus directors because of his background as an electrician instructor, department head, and registered engineer, as well as his expertise in facilities management and equipment. See id. at ¶ 3; Bemis Affidavit (Exhibit F to 1995 Motion).
However, Plaintiff has not introduced any evidence to show that Durnovo's decision to eliminate the part-time campus director positions was racially motivated. Even accepting as true the allegation that Durnovo harassed Plaintiff, Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the harassment was motivated by racial animus. Indeed, to the contrary, she has alleged that Durnovo harassed her because she was jealous of Plaintiff's former intimate relationship with Defendant Engle. Original Complaint, p. 6; Plaintiff's Deposition (Exhibit A to 1995 Motion), Vol. I at 25-45; id., Vol II, at 6-12.
Plaintiff's complaints against Castillo involve the same incidents as her complaints against Durnovo.
First, Plaintiff alleges that Castillo, along with Durnovo, harassed her after she refused to be reassigned to another position in January 1992 by sending her frequent memoranda in reference to insignificant matters or incidents that had not taken place. Mosley Affidavit, at ¶ 9. Again, Plaintiff has presented no evidence that this harassment was due to racial animus. Castillo has responded that the memoranda were necessary because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryans v. Gresham
...v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 94 CIV. 2911(JES), 1996 WL 514874, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.10, 1996); Mosley v. Houston Community College Sys., 951 F.Supp. at 1279, 1288-89 (S.D.Tex.1996); Jean v. Walgreen Co., 887 F.Supp. 1007, 1012 (N.D.Ill.1994); see also Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2......
-
White v. Fagen
... ... DR. ELIZABETH FAGEN, ET AL., Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-0420United States District rt, S.D. Texas, Houston" DivisionOctober 31, 2022 ... \xC2" ... injury actions. Mosley v. Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys., ... 951 ... ...
-
Looper v. Houston Community College System, No. 14-07-00040-CV (Tex. App. 11/29/2007)
...a matter of law, Castillo could not bind HCCS; only the board of trustees' actions can bind HCCS. See Mosely v. Houston Community College Sys., 951 F.Supp. 1279, 1289 (S.D. Tex. 1996) ("Plaintiff's claims that oral promises were made regarding the length of her employment or duties cannot b......
-
Hous. Cmty. Coll. v. Hall Law Grp., PLLC
...CODE § 552.003(1)(A); Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770 (Tex. 2018); see also Mosley v. Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys., 951 F. Supp. 1279, 1290 (S.D. Tex. 1996). The TPIA provides a limited waiver of governmental immunity by allowing a requestor of public information t......