Mveng-Whitted v. Virginia State Univ.
| Decision Date | 27 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00842-JAG |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | BRENDA MVENG-WHITTED, LAWRENCE HAWTHORNE, Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DR. WELDON HILL, and THOMAS LAROSE Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss.1 The case stems from alleged racial discrimination and retaliation by the defendants and the plaintiffs' subsequent termination. The plaintiffs bring assorted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and Title VII. The Court shall dismiss Counts One, Five, Six, and Eight—all claims against Virginia State University for violations of §§ 1981 and 1983—due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. With respect to the remaining counts, the motions are denied, as the plaintiffs allege sufficient factual allegations to support their Title VII claims against Virginia State University and §§ 1981 and 1983 claims against Thomas LaRose.2
In addition, the Court shall sever the action due to misjoinder. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The two plaintiffs are improperly joined because their claims do not arise from "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A). Thisrequirement is not met simply by bringing the same legal claims against the same defendants. The plaintiffs' factual allegations are sufficiently distinct to constitute two separate civil actions and shall accordingly be severed. Finally, the Court shall order additional briefing to clarify certain claims alleged by both plaintiffs and to determine the appropriate statute of limitations for those claims.
A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a claim and "does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).3 When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all the complainant's factual allegations as true and resolve factual differences in that party's favor. See De Sole v. United States, 947 F.2d 1169, 1171 (4th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the Court need not accept the complainant's legal conclusions or any other unreasonable or unwarranted arguments as true. Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008); E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). In addition, the complainant must offer more than "'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'" to overcome a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2009).
The following facts are taken from the plaintiffs' complaint and therefore construed in the manner most favorable to Mveng-Whitted's claims, in keeping with the appropriate motion to dismiss standard. In August 1998, Brenda Mveng-Whitted, who holds master's degrees in graphic design and African art history, began working for defendant Virginia State University ("VSU") as an instructor in the art department. She was promoted to assistant professor in 2002 and associate professor with tenure in 2004. In 2003, she also became "coordinator" of the art and design unit, following the art department's merger with the music department.
In June 2006, Dr. Mark Phillips retired as chairperson of the music, art, and design department. Thomas LaRose succeeded him in this role, though it is unclear from the parties' pleadings precisely when this took place. Prior to LaRose's tenure, Mveng-Whitted received positive performance evaluations each year of her employment. In 2007, however, during LaRose's first year in office, she received a poor performance evaluation, even though LaRose has never observed her in the classroom. She only became aware of this negative evaluation in June 2010. Since 2007, she has not received any further evaluations from LaRose.
Mveng-Whitted believes that LaRose initiated a systematic plan early in his tenure to reduce the number of African-American instructors in the art and design unit. Two other African-American employees were allegedly fired after the spring 2006 semester. Also, during his first month in office, LaRose took office computers away from Mveng-Whitted and an adjunct instructor who is also African-American, Ms. Frances Young. The two faculty members got the computers back only after appealing to LaRose's superiors. In the fall of 2006, LaRose informed Mveng-Whitted that he intended to "get rid of Young and "had figured out how hewas going to do it." He reassigned Young's courses to a Caucasian instructor while having her teach courses outside design, her area of expertise. Young was eventually replaced by another Caucasian instructor after resigning in frustration.
LaRose then removed Mveng-Whitted from all committees without notice. For the 20062007 academic year, he replaced her on one committee with an unqualified and inferior Caucasian instructor, even though Mveng-Whitted's contract requires her to serve on departmental committees. When she confronted LaRose about her class assignments, he stated that another instructor was more qualified to teach design courses and that Mveng-Whitted was not qualified to serve on committees or teach African art and illustration. Finally, she says that LaRose cited her failure to serve on a committee as the basis for her negative evaluation in 2007, even though she was removed unwillingly.
Beginning in the fall of 2009,4 LaRose gave Mveng-Whitted's design courses to Caucasian instructors and assigned Mveng-Whitted courses outside her discipline. Additionally, LaRose reassigned her classroom to a new Caucasian instructor, refused to provide her with current software while providing the same to a new instructor, and gave her courses with low enrollment while giving a new instructor more students. Apparently, only African-American instructors like Young and Mveng-Whitted are subject to such treatment.
Also in the fall of 2009, Mveng-Whitted applied for a promotion to full professor but was notified on November 19 that her promotion was not recommended. She claims LaRose pressured students to submit negative teaching reviews, resulting in the promotion and tenure committee, dean, and university committee opting not to recommend her for promotion to fullprofessor.
Mveng-Whitted has twice complained to VSU about her mistreatment. On February 24, 2009, she asked VSU's human resources department to look into the disparity of treatment between African-Americans and Caucasians under LaRose's leadership. In September 2009, she filed a complaint for workplace harassment and discrimination with VSU's Equal Employment Opportunity Office due to LaRose's verbal abuse and efforts to interfere with her academic performance.
On May 3, 2010, Mveng-Whitted received written notification that she would be laid off and her contract not renewed because the art department was going in a new direction. She learned that the decision was made for budgetary reasons, upon LaRose's recommendation. In June 2011, she was relieved of all teaching assignments in the art and design unit. Mveng-Whitted claims that a Caucasian, non-tenured assistant professor of graphic design who has been employed for three years has not been laid off. According to the defendants, however, Mveng-Whitted remains a tenured faculty member of the university, with no break in employment and no reduction in salary or benefits. (O'Neal Decl. Ex. 1, at 3-4.)5 Mveng-Whitted does not challenge her employment status, but rather states that this continuity "does not suffice to show that she has not suffered an adverse employment action" , and that "it is clear that her employment status has been effectively terminated." (Id. at 5.)
The following facts are likewise taken from the plaintiffs' complaint and therefore construed in the manner most favorable to Hawthorne's claims. Lawrence Hawthorne beganworking for VSU in January 1999 as an adjunct faculty member. He became a full-time instructor in 2001 and was promoted to assistant professor of art in 2007. Throughout his employment, Hawthorne had various responsibilities, including curator of the art gallery, faculty senate member, departmental safety coordinator, chairperson of the department's curriculum committee, co-author of a grant for VSU, art camp co-director, and organizer of the visiting artists lecture series.
At some point in 2000 or 2001, VSU announced a new requirement that every faculty member must hold a Ph.D. Hawthorne, whose highest degree at the time was a master's degree in fine arts, claims that no other faculty member in the art department had a Ph.D. in anything other than art history, the only art-based Ph.D. then available. Dr. Eddie Moore, then VSU President, told Hawthorne to "get a Ph.D. in something, [I don't] care what." Shortly afterward, Hawthorne informed his advisees of the change and his anticipated termination, and at least one hundred students participated in a campus demonstration in opposition to the requirement. Since Hawthorne's name appeared on paperwork for equipment signed out by protestors, Dr. Moore apparently suspected him of orchestrating the demonstration. Indeed, Hawthorne claims that Dr. Phillips, then department head, and another administrator informed him of Moore's suspicion directly and discouraged him from applying for tenure that year. Consequently, Hawthorne chose not to apply for tenure in 2006. The following year, he was promoted to assistant professor, though he claims that the provost, Eric Thomas, was responsible for this move.
According to Hawthorne, full-time faculty members are required to submit an...
To continue reading
Request your trial