Mulla v. Univ. of Minn.
| Decision Date | 16 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-931 (SRN/LIB) |
| Parties | Mehdijaffer Allyakber Mulla, Plaintiff, v. The University of Minnesota, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, Michael Kim, and Julia Weston, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
James Robbins, Kowitz Law, P.O. Box 598, Lindstrom, MN 55045, for Plaintiff
Carrie Ryan Gallia, University of Minnesota, Office of the General Counsel, 360 McNamara Alumni Center, 200 Oak Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, for Defendants the University of Minnesota, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, and Michael Kim
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 31] filed by Defendants the University of Minnesota, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, and Michael Kim (collectively, the "University Defendants"). The parties appeared for a hearing by teleconference on November 19, 2020 before the undersigned judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the University Defendants' motion.
In August 2020, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint against the University Defendants and Julia Weston. (Am. Complaint [Doc. No. 23-2].) Mulla alleges the following 14 claims: (1) constitutional violations of due process and Title IX under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts 2, 3, & 4); (2) violation of Title IX (Count 1); (3) defamation (Counts 6 & 7); (4) breach of contract (Count 9); (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (Counts 11 & 12); (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 13); (7) negligence (Counts 5 & 8); (8) First Amendment retaliation (Count 10); and (9) estoppel and reliance (Count 14). The Amended Complaint also cites a number of exhibits that Plaintiff filed at Docket Number 22, to which he frequently refers in the Amended Complaint by Bates number.1 (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 30.)
Mulla, a Minnesota resident, has attended the University of Minnesota's Medical School ("the Medical School") in the past. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 44.) The University of Minnesota's Board of Regents is the University's governing board, (id. ¶ 10), Michael Kim is the Medical School's Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, (id. ¶ 12), and Julia Weston is the Student Representative on the Medical School's Committee on Student Scholastic Standing ("COSSS").2 (Id. ¶ 13.) Although the Board of Regents is a named Defendant, none of Mulla's causes of action are asserted against it.
The Medical School's COSSS is tasked with the following responsibilities: (1) monitoring the progress of medical students, particularly when students "fail[] to meet the academic, technical, or professional standards for progression and graduation"; (2) evaluating students' performance and adherence to the University of Minnesota's academic and professional policies; and (3) evaluating whether students have met the requirements for an MD degree. (Pl.'s Ex. R at 110-11; see also Pl.'s Ex. V at 133.) Medical students must demonstrate proficiency in nine areas of competency in order to graduate: (1) patient care; (2) knowledge for practice; (3) practice-based learning and improvement; (4) interpersonal and communication skills; (5) professionalism; (6) systems-based practice; (7) interprofessional collaboration; (8) personal and professional development; and (9) scientific and clinical inquiry. Univ. of Minn. Medical School, Competencies Required for Graduation (July 2019) https://med.umn.edu/md-students/academics/competencies-required-graduation. When a student fails to meet previously established consequences regarding certain standards or requirements, the COSSS has several options, or "outcomes." (Pl.'s Ex. R at 114-15.) These outcomes include, but are not limited to, the following: verbal or written warnings, remediation programs, participation in programs outside of the medical school, placement on a leave of absence, suspension from the Medical School, and dismissal from the Medical School. (Id.; see also Pl.'s Ex. V at 138-39.)
Mulla entered the Medical School in the fall of 2016. (See Pl.'s N at 86; Pl.'s Ex. W at 145].) In 2017, the COSSS suspended Mulla from the Medical School for violating certain policies, after the University's Office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action ("EOAA") had conducted an investigation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17.)
In July 2019, Mulla appeared before the COSSS to request reinstatement. (Id.) Finding that he had demonstrated rehabilitation, the COSSS readmitted Mulla to the Medical School on several conditions, including that "any further professionalism concern will result in your immediate suspension and dismissal hearing." (Id. ¶ 18.) Mulla resumed his studies at the Medical School in the fall of 2019. (Id. ¶ 19.)
In November 2019, Medical School students reported new allegations about Mulla to the Medical School's Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Dr. Michael Kim. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) The complainants described conduct that could possibly constitute sexual harassment. (Pl.'s Ex. D at 12) ( the background section of the EOAA report, that Dr. Kim had filed a report with the EOAA "stating that seven female medical students contacted him to report they were experiencing harassment from [Mulla]."). Mulla alleges that these allegations were "false," and that subsequently, Dr. Kim solicited additional complaints from the student body via email. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.)
On November 14, 2019, Dr. Kim informed Mulla via email that the Medical School had received reports from "multiple students" who raised concerns that "[Mulla] ha[d] exhibited unprofessional behavior." (Pl.'s Ex. D at 51.) Dr. Kim stated that these new professionalism concerns prompted the Medical School to suspend Mulla, in accordance with the provisions of his fall 2019 reinstatement which warned that any furtherprofessionalism concerns would result in immediate suspension and a dismissal hearing. (Id.; Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) Mulla alleges that Dr. Kim suspended him "without providing Mr. Mulla the allegations or the ability to respond." (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.)
Separate from Mulla's immediate suspension based on professionalism concerns, Dr. Kim referred the reports of alleged sexual harassment to the University's EOAA Office on November 20, 2019. (Pl.'s Ex. D at 12.)
In November and December 2019, Kaley Klanica, Senior Associate General Counsel for the University, responded to inquiries from Mulla's counsel, reiterating the reason for Mulla's suspension, and distinguishing it from any disciplinary action that might result from the EOAA investigation :
Mr. Mulla's suspension was triggered by the conditions imposed by the Committee on Student Scholastic Standing (COSSS). The members of COSSS voted to reinstate Mr. Mulla on probation, conditioned on his immediate suspension upon "any further professionalism concern." The suspension is triggered by a "concern," not a confirmed violation of a policy. Violations of the policy need to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. It is my understanding that one or more reports have been made to the University's Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA), and EOAA will conduct any warranted investigation pursuant to Title IX and University policy.
(Pl.'s Ex. G at 58; see also Pl.'s Ex. E at 53; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34-35.)
The EOAA conducted an investigation under Title IX into the students' allegations, which included "reports of sexual misconduct," to determine if the conduct constituted a violation of the University's Student Conduct Code regarding sexual harassment. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22.) Mulla alleges that the EOAA failed to advise him of the allegations, delayedinterviewing critical witnesses, and violated its own guidelines without allowing a response to any allegation. (Id. ¶ 23.)
Nonetheless, Mulla also alleges that "[t]he EOAA conducted a detailed and lengthy investigation that lasted over 200 days," culminating in a 44-page report, issued in June 2020. (Id. ¶ 36; Pl.'s Ex. B at 6-47.) During the EOAA's Title IX investigation, it interviewed a number of complainants, witnesses, and Mulla. (Pl.'s Ex. B at 14.) Among the written materials that the EOAA reviewed were statements provided by Mulla and others, and social media and email messages from Mulla. (Id. at 14-15.) The EOAA found insufficient evidence to establish that Mulla had engaged in sexual or gender-based harassment, or had created a hostile environment, in violation of the University's Student Conduct Code. (Id. at 43-47.) Accordingly, Mulla received no discipline as a result of the Title IX investigatory proceeding. However, the EOAA found, as a factual matter, that Mulla "sent unwelcome social media messages to five Complainants in September, October, and November 2019" and that he had numerous unwelcome in-person interactions with classmates. (Id. at 36-45.)
In July 2020, in a separate academic proceeding before the Medical School's COSSS, the committee held a hearing to determine whether Mulla's conduct—while not subject to discipline for violations of the University's Student Conduct Code, but deemed "unwelcome"—warranted any sanctions for professionalism reasons. (Pl.'s Ex. O at 91].) Again, the COSSS had readmitted Mulla to the Medical School in the fall of 2019 on the condition that "any further professionalism concern" would result in his immediate suspension and a dismissal hearing. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) At the July 23, 2020 hearing,conducted via Zoom, Mulla provided a personal statement to the COSSS, and witnesses provided testimony. (Id. ¶ 42.) The hearing, scheduled for one hour, extended past the allotted time. (Id. ¶ 43.) Mulla was represented by counsel at the hearing, although he alleges that his counsel was "cut off" by the COSSS chair during cross examination of witnesses. (Id.)
On August 18, 2020, the COSSS issued a seven-page academic decision letter to Mulla, which recounted the hearing process and procedures and explained its...
To continue reading
Request your trial