Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University
| Citation | 655 F.Supp.2d 948 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 08-4948 (JMR/RLE). |
| Parties | Dr. Leonard Chukwualuka ONYIAH, Plaintiff, v. ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY; Board of Trustees, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities; Minnesota Inter-Faculty Organization; Earl H. Potter, III, President, Saint Cloud State University; Michael Spitzer, Provost, Saint Cloud State University; Mary Richardson; David DeGroote; David Robinson; Richard Sundheim; Nancy Jessee; Byron Gayewski; Sharon Cogdill; Steven Ludwig; and Roy H. Saigo, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
P. Chinedu Nwaneri, Nwaneri & Associates PLLC, Eagan, MN, for Plaintiff.
David W. Merchant, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Connie L. Howard, Inter Faculty Organization, St. Paul, MN, Daniel E. Warner, Warner Law Office, Inver Grove Hts., MN, for Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Judge Raymond L. Erickson, and after an independent review of the files, records and proceedings in the above-entitled matter, IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the University Defendants, and the Individual Defendants' Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal [Docket Nos. 18 and 43], is granted, such that all of the Plaintiff's claims against those Defendants, with the exception of his pay discrimination claim, are dismissed.
2. That the IFO's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 20] is granted.
3. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [Docket No. 26] is denied.
RAYMOND L. ERICKSON, United States Chief Magistrate Judge.
This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), upon the Amended Motion of the Defendants St. Cloud State University ("the University"), the Board of Trustees for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities ("the Board") (collectively, "the University Defendants"), and the individually named Defendants, Earl H. Potter, III, Michael Spitzer ("Spitzer"), Mary Richardson ("Richardson"), David De-Groote ("DeGroote"), David Robinson ("Robinson"), Richard Sundheim ("Sundheim"), Nancy Jessee ("Jessee"), Byron Gayewski ("Gayewski"), Sharon Cogdill ("Cogdill"), Steven Ludwig ("Ludwig"), Roy H. Saigo ("Saigo")(collectively, "the Individual Defendants"), for partial Dismissal, as well as the Motion of the Defendant Minnesota Inter-Faculty Organization ("IFO") to Dismiss, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. See, Dockets Nos. 18, 20, 26, and 43.
A Hearing on the Motions was conducted on April 7, 2009, at which time, the Plaintiff appeared by P. Chinedu Nwaneri, Esq.; the IFO appeared by Daniel E. Warner, Esq.; and the University Defendants, and the Individual Defendants, appeared by David W. Merchant, Esq. At the time of the Hearing, we granted the parties leave to file additional briefing with respect to the Plaintiff's claim for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED"), and subsequently, we took the matter under advisement on April 20, 2009. For reasons which follow, we recommend that the Defendants' Motions be granted, and that the Plaintiff's Motion be denied.
In this action, the Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendants for violations of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. No. 111-2, 125 Stat. 5 (2009) ("Fair Pay Act"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), Title VII, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and a claim for IIED, which he experienced throughout his tenure with the University. See, Amended Complaint, Docket No. 71, at ¶¶ 24-55, 64-66.1 In addition, the Plaintiff brings a claim against the IFO for a claimed breach of its duty of fair representation, pursuant to the Public Employee Labor Relations Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 179A.01 et seq. Id. at ¶¶ 55-63 ("PELRA"). For their part, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff's claims, except for his pay discrimination claim, should be dismissed. See, University Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 18; IFO's Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 20; University Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 43. We briefly summarize the operative facts.
The Plaintiff is a fifty-nine (59) year old male of African descent, who is currently employed by the University as a statistics professor. See, Amended Complaint, supra at ¶ 14. In 1998, the University hired the Plaintiff to work as an Assistant Professor of Statistics. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of his hire, his rank and salary were below the level required by his academic qualifications. Id. In July of 2000, the University terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Id. at ¶ 15. After his dismissal, the University advertised for the Plaintiff's former position, but did not interview him. Id. at ¶ 47. Instead, the University hired Dr. Byron Gajewski ("Gajewski"),2 who is both white, and younger, than the Plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 15, 47. The Plaintiff was unemployed throughout the 2000 to 2001 academic year, but was rehired in August of 2001. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Since his rehiring, the Plaintiff has remained employed by the University. Id. at ¶ 17.
In February of 2002, the Plaintiff became a tenured-track Associate Professor, and thereafter, in August of 2005, he was promoted to a tenured Associate Professor. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19. In August of 2006, the Plaintiff became a tenured Professor. Id. at ¶ 20. Despite the Plaintiff's promotions, he contends that he has been significantly underpaid, when compared to his peers, since 1998. Id. at ¶ 21. The Plaintiff notes that independent consultants, who were hired by the University, conducted equity studies, which discovered that the Plaintiff's compensation was below average, when compared to individuals with similar experience, and academic qualifications. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that, despite the results of the equity studies, the University failed to resolve the pay inequities. Id. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the University paid non-black professors, who had similar qualifications to those of the Plaintiff, at a higher salary. Id. Further, the Plaintiff maintains that younger professors, who did not possess the Plaintiff's qualifications, also received a higher salary. Id. at ¶ 22.
The Plaintiff also alleges that he has been subjected "to an atmosphere of harassment and hostility" since his hiring in 1998. Id. at ¶ 50. According to the Amended Complaint, the Individual Defendants encouraged students to harass the Plaintiff during his class, and file false accusations against him with the University. Id. On December 9, 1998, a faculty member is alleged to have marched into the Plaintiff's class, and directed him to "go back and wipe the board for me," as the Plaintiff was preparing to leave the classroom. Id. at ¶ 51. The Plaintiff maintains that the hostility and harassment escalated when his fellow faculty members were asked to create "a departmental strategic plan to promote diversity in the department * * *." Id. at ¶ 52. However, the faculty members "unanimously declared that they did not know what diversity meant." Id.
During that same academic year, Robinson became the Chair of the Statistics and Computer Networking Department. Id. at ¶ 53. The Plaintiff contends that Robinson, Sundheim, Richardson, and others conspired to fire the Plaintiff at the end of the 1999 to 2000 academic year. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that, as part of that plan, Richardson enlisted a student to shout, and to insult the Plaintiff, during his class. Id. at ¶ 54. The Plaintiff reported the incident to Robinson, but no disciplinary action was taken against Richardson. Id. In addition, during the 2004 to 2005 academic year, Robinson allegedly "devised and applied a discriminatory grid solely * * * to make [the Plaintiff] look bad and recommend[ed] that [the] Plaintiff be denied tenure and promotion." Id. at ¶ 55.
With respect to the IFO, the Plaintiff contends that the IFO breached its duty of fair representation, under the collective bargaining agreement ("the Master Agreement") between the IFO and the University, when it failed to represent the Plaintiff in his discrimination complaints against the University. Id. at ¶¶ 56-58. In addition, the Plaintiff maintains that the IFO's breach enabled the University to continue its pattern of discrimination, and as a result, the Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress. Id. at ¶ 62.
On January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights ("MDHR"), in which he alleged that he had suffered employment discrimination, and harassment, because of his race, national origin, and age. See, Complaint, Docket No. 1, Exhibit 56. At around that same time, the Plaintiff also filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id., Exhibit 57. On May 23, 2008, the EEOC issued the Plaintiff a right to sue letter. Id.
On August 11, 2008, the Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing of his original Complaint. See, Docket No. 1. On March 27, 2009, after the Defendants had filed their Motions to Dismiss, the Plaintiff—now represented by legal counsel— filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, Docket No. 58. However, on April 2, 2009, the Plaintiff withdrew his Motion to Amend so as to "preserve [the] Plaintiff's right(s) under" Rule 15(a)(1). See, Docket No. 67. At the Hearing, the University Defendants, and the Individual Defendants, advised that they would stipulate to the Amended Complaint.
However, the IFO would not so stipulate because, it asserted, the Plaintiff had waived his right to amend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.
...later files an Amended Complaint, the amended pleading renders the defendant's Motion to Dismiss moot." Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 948, 958 (D. Minn. 2009) (Erickson, C.M.J.), adopted by 655 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Minn. 2009) (Rosenbaum, J.). "If [the defendants] believe[......
-
Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. # 501
...claim based on denial of advance annual leave in pay period 15 was a discrete discriminatory act); Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F.Supp.2d 948, 964 (D.Minn.2009) (dismissing plaintiff's age discrimination claim because he failed to provide any nexus between the alleged refusal to hir......
-
Newbrough v. Bishop Heelan Catholic Sch.
...within the Eighth Circuit have also held that individual liability under the ADEA is impermissible. See Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University, 655 F. Supp. 2d 948, 962 (D. Minn. 2009) (finding that Title VII and the ADEA are not applicable to individuals); Fikse v. State of Iowa Third Judici......
-
Geiger v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., Court File No. 14-cv-1576 (JRT/LIB)
...later files an Amended Complaint, the amended pleading renders the defendant's Motion to Dismiss moot." Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 948, 958 (D. Minn. 2009) (Erickson, C.M.J.), adopted by 655 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Minn. 2009) (Rosenbaum, J.). "If [the defendants] believe[......