Nurradin v. Tuskegee Univ.
| Decision Date | 16 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-00155-SRW |
| Parties | MAKEDA NURRADIN, v. TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Plaintiff Makeda Nurradin filed this action under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”), the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1988) (“FLSA”), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), against Defendant Tuskegee University. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim for breach of contract against Defendant. Id. Plaintiff's claims stem from allegations that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her employment and her time as a student at Tuskegee, and that Defendant paid her less in wages than a male counterpart and did not pay her for all of the hours that she worked.
Before the court are Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 37) Plaintiff's response (Doc. 41), and Defendant's reply (Doc. 45).[2] Defendant contends that Plaintiff was not entitled to overtime or minimum wage payments because the FLSA does not apply to graduate research assistants (“GRA”s) that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is not pled with sufficient factual specificity to state a claim; that Plaintiff's Title VII claims are time-barred; that Plaintiff's Title VII claims for discrimination and retaliation based on events alleged to have occurred prior to June 17, 2020-other than the three listed in her charge filed with the Equal Employment Condition (“EEOC”)-are due to be dismissed because they exceed the scope of the charge; and that Plaintiff's Title IX claims must be dismissed because they are preempted by Title VII in the area of employment discrimination. (Doc. 37, at 3, 8, 10, 11).
For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that Defendant's motion to dismiss is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
Tuskegee University (“Tuskegee” or “the University”) in Macon County, Alabama, is an accredited Historically Black University (HBU) that is governed by its board of trustees and provides oversight through its president. (Doc. 34, at ¶¶ 12, 13). Tuskegee receives federal, state, county, and private funds for the education and welfare of its students. Id. at ¶ 14. In 2016, Plaintiff Makeda Nurradin earned her bachelor of science degree in environmental science from Tuskegee, and she returned to Tuskegee in May 2018 to pursue a master of science degree in that same field. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 16. Plaintiff took a position as a graduate research assistant, for which she was to work at the post-harvest center (“PHC”) on campus. Id. at ¶ 17. According to Plaintiff, her student employment contract indicated that she was expected to work approximately 25 hours per week and would be paid $11.00 per hour. Id. Plaintiff kept up the agricultural facilities of the University by performing manual labor on its farm, fields, and greenhouses. Id. at ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid a stipend and did not conduct research for a professor, and the work had nothing to do with her graduate degree. Id. As part of her work, Plaintiff was also expected to drive international students to the farm and around campus, and to haul fruit and vegetables from the farm in her personal vehicle. Id. at ¶ 19. According to Plaintiff, this work had nothing to do with conducting research for a professor or for her own graduate degree. Id.
Dr. Desmond Mortley was Plaintiff's graduate advisor and her direct supervisor. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges that, from the beginning of her time with Mortley through October 2019, Mortley made inappropriate sexual comments to Plaintiff, blatantly stared at her breasts and body in an offensive way, and told her that she was “a very pretty girl.” Id. at ¶ 21. Mortley repeatedly tried to be alone with Plaintiff and became upset with her when she invited other graduate students to accompany her because she feared being alone with him. Id. at ¶ 22.
According to Plaintiff, she worked almost every day, including most weekend days, and although she consistently worked 40 or more hours per week, she was never paid for more than 25 hours per week. Id. at ¶ 23. In fact, Plaintiff was required to stay on campus to work during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday breaks. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff maintains in her complaint that she worked as a GRA for 95 weeks, but that, in violation of her student contract, she was not paid at the hourly rate of $11.00 for approximately 1, 571 hours. Id. at ¶ 26. According to Plaintiff, she is owed approximately $17, 300 for unpaid work. Id. Plaintiff alleges that when she complained to Mortley about the extra hours, he told her that graduate students do not get a break, that they are just supposed to work, and that hours do not matter. Id. at ¶ 27.
Plaintiff states that beginning in January 2019 and continuing thereafter, Sena Ahiabor, a male international student from Ghana, who was also working as a GRA under Mortley's supervision, began making inappropriate comments to Plaintiff; blatantly stared at her body in an offensive way; took pictures of her without her consent; repeatedly asked her to spend time with him socially despite her refusal of his advances; and physically grabbed her on several occasions to try to keep her from escaping his advances and inappropriate conduct. Id. at ¶¶ 28-29, 31, 35. In April 2019, Plaintiff reported this offensive behavior to Mortley, who said that he would address the issue with Ahiabor. Id. at ¶ 34. According to Plaintiff, Mortley was required under Tuskegee's codes of conduct to report Plaintiff's complaints to the university's judicial board, but Mortley did not do so. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. Following her complaint to Mortley, Ahiabor's offensive behavior grew worse over time, and Mortley became more demanding, requiring Plaintiff to perform much more physically taxing labor than the other GRAs. Id. at ¶¶ 35-36.
In July 2019, Plaintiff observed several student employment contracts hanging on Mortley's office wall and, upon noticing that male graduate students were earning a higher wage than she, Plaintiff took pictures of Ahiabor's and her own student employment contracts with the intention of making a complaint to the university about the unequal pay. Id. at ¶ 37. Because Mortley did not take any action in response to her various complaints, Plaintiff met with Dr. Lily McNair, the president of Tuskegee, on October 17, 2019. Id. at ¶ 38. Plaintiff told McNair about her complaints concerning Ahiabor, as well as Mortley's behavior and inappropriate comments. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiff provided McNair with copies of her student employment contract and that of Ahiabor to prove the disparity in their pay, and she also shared her concerns about the display of these contracts, which contained identifying information such as each student's student ID number, home address, telephone number, and social security number. Id. at ¶ 40. Plaintiff asked McNair to report Ahiabor's conduct toward Plaintiff to the judicial board, and also asked that Mortley's failure to report Plaintiff's complaints be addressed, that Plaintiff be assigned a different advisor, and that the University correct the disparity in Plaintiff's wages compared to that of international students. Id. at ¶ 41.
On November 3, 2019, Plaintiff memorialized her discussion with McNair in writing, again making the same request for relief. Id. at ¶ 44. Citing Tuskegee's student handbook, which directed that a complaint should be submitted to the office of the dean of students, Plaintiff alleges that on November 5, 2019, she submitted four separate formal, written reports to the dean, two of which pertained to Plaintiff's complaints of sexual harassment against Mortley and Ahiabor. Id. at ¶ 45. Kimberly M. Caesar, a judicial affairs officer, contacted Plaintiff concerning her complaints. Id. at ¶ 47. On November 19, 2019, Caesar sent correspondence to Plaintiff indicating that two of the cases opened in response to her complaints had been closed by the office of the dean of students and judicial affairs. Id. at ¶ 48.
On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff received notice from the office of the dean of students and judicial affairs informing her that because she had included Ahiabor's student employment contract with the documents submitted in support of her complaint against Mortley she was being charged with (1) conduct inappropriate for a Tuskegee University student and (2) unauthorized taking or possession of property or services of another. Id. at ¶ 49. Plaintiff explained that she had taken a picture of the document that was displayed publicly for the sole purpose of supporting her allegation of unequal pay and that she had no intention of disseminating the information for any other reason or to any other entity. Id. at ¶ 51.
In December 2019, Plaintiff learned that her tuition and work study for the 2020 Spring semester had been cut. Id. at ¶ 58. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff sent correspondence to McNair alleging retaliation by the University and Mortley. Id. at ¶ 59. In March 2020, Plaintiff submitted another complaint to university officials regarding Mortley's allegedly continuing harassing, intimidating, and retaliatory behavior. Id. at ¶ 60. On March 10, 2020, equipment which had been assigned to Plaintiff in November 2019 from Mortley's lab for her use to collect data to support and complete her master's thesis was removed by Mortley from the university's lab, without notice to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 43, 61. Removal of the equipment allegedly had the potential to compromise P...
To continue reading
Request your trial