Pomerantz v. Coastal Carolina Univ.
| Decision Date | 16 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:22-cv-1437-JD-TER |
| Parties | ERIKA POMERANTZ, Plaintiff, v. COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, PETER PAQUETTE, ANGEL ONLEY-LIVINGSTON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action arises from Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Coastal Carolina University (CCU). Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas, Horry County, South Carolina. Defendants removed it to this court. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for race discrimination retaliation, and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as state law causes of action for slander and negligent supervision. Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) Plaintiff's hostile work environment, slander, and negligent supervision causes of action. Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 6) in opposition. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(g), DSC. This report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.
“Plaintiff is multicultural Asian, Latina, and Jamaican.”[1] Compl. ¶ 25 (ECF No. 1-1). She is a Licensed Professional Counselor and a Licensed Addictions Counselor in South Carolina with a Master's Degree in Professional Counseling. Compl. ¶ 26. Plaintiff was hired by CCU on September 16, 2017. Compl. ¶ 27.
Approximately a year and half after Plaintiff's hire, CCU decided to hire a diverse, multicultural counselor. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30, 33. On April 1, 2019, CCU hired Sitonja Valenzuela, who was unlicensed, less qualified, and less experienced than Plaintiff, but paid her more money per year than Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 33. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff questioned why CCU hired a less experienced person at a higher rate of pay than Plaintiff. Plaintiff was informed that the hire was due to CCU's initiate for diversity, and Plaintiff was not “multicultural enough and presented as white and therefore was not paid more. Compl. ¶ 34. Plaintiff informed Jennie Cassidy[2] that she was being discriminated against based on race and she wanted the issue addressed. Cassidy stated she would take Plaintiff's complaint to Dr. Debbie Conner. Compl. ¶ 35. During each bi-weekly supervision meeting from April to May of 2019, Plaintiff addressed the race discrimination. Cassidy continually informed Plaintiff that she would address it with Dr. Conner and that there may be a chance for a salary inquiry in October of 2019. Compl. ¶ 36.
Plaintiff was on furlough from June 15, 2019, to August 1, 2019, per her employment contract. Compl. ¶ 39. On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff met with Kimberly Sherfesse, Associate Vice President for Human Resources/EEO Officer, and made a complaint of race discrimination specifically regarding discrimination based on race and a pay discrepancy of a less qualified employee making more money due to being “multicultural.” Plaintiff included in the complaint that she was informed she was not “multicultural enough” to be paid at the higher rate. Compl. ¶ 40. During the meeting, Plaintiff also informed Sherfesse that she protested the job posting for the new counselor and that she had suffered retaliation as a result of her complaints. Compl. ¶¶ 41-42. On August 18, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email requesting that Sherfesee follow up with her when the review of her complaints was complete. Compl. ¶ 44. On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff received an email from Sherfesee stating that she had met with Dr. Conner and Defendant Dr. Paquette, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs/Dean of Students, and they were reviewing her complaints. Compl. ¶ 45. On September 22, Plaintiff received an email setting an appointment for September 24, 2019, to review the results of the investigation, but on the day of the appointment, Sherfesee canceled the meeting. Compl. ¶ 47-48.
On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff participated in a meeting with Dockery and Canady[3] where she was informed that she was being investigated for a Title IX violation. Franklin Ellis accused Plaintiff of making derogatory comments regarding his sexual orientation. Compl. ¶ 49. Plaintiff was informed that the complaint was unrelated to her complaint of race discrimination, and the Title IX investigation was not in retaliation for her complaint. Compl. ¶ 53. The investigations into the two complaints ran concurrently. Lori Cox, Associate Director of Employee Relations and Benefit Services also held an interview inquiring into the office climate. During the interview process it was stated to Dockery, Canady, and Cox that the investigation and retaliation had created a hostile work environment, but no actions were put into place to reduce or change the hostile work environment. Compl. ¶ 54.
That complaint was investigated and determined to be unfounded. Compl. ¶ 49.
On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff had a meeting with Sherfesee and BJ Landrum, Vice President for Human Resources University Compliance & HR, during which she was informed that she would be receiving a salary increase based on “compression,” and other employees in the office would receive a “compression” raise as well. Compl. ¶ 51. On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff was informed that should would be receiving a raise effective October 16, 2019, but it was not equal to Valenzuela's pay. Compl. ¶ 52.
On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff participated in a meetingwith Cox to discuss office dynamics. Compl. ¶ 55. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff had a meeting with Dockery to address the allegations against Plaintiff by Ellis. Compl. ¶ 56. On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff received a letter via email from Canady which stated that the university had concluded that the evidence does not support a finding that Plaintiff violated university policies regarding Title IX. Compl. ¶ 57.
On November 11, 2019, Dr. Paquette met with Plaintiff and informed her that he was not aware of her discrimination claim. Plaintiff asked Dr. Paquette what he was going to do about the hostile work environment, and Paquette told her that was a legal term she should refrain from using and the new interim director would address it in the future. Dr. Paquette yelled at Plaintiff during this meeting. Compl. ¶ 58. On November 12, 2019, Dr. Paquette requested that Plaintiff meet with Sperduto[4] to address any unresolved issues in the office. Compl. ¶ 59. On November 14, 2019, Dr. Paquette and Dr. Conner held a meeting with Plaintiff to discuss other issues that came to light regarding Plaintiff during the Title IX investigation, including bullying, failing to maintain a harmonious working relationship, potential breach of confidentiality, and potential inappropriate referrals. Compl. ¶ 60. The complaint states “they further informed the Plaintiff the discipline was not retaliation for her complaints,” Compl. ¶ 60, though there are no specific allegations regarding any discipline as a result of this meeting.
On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff had a meeting with Dr. Elizabeth Carter, Director of LiveWell Office, Interim Director of Counseling Services, to discuss Plaintiff's concerns regarding the hostile work environment, retaliation, and the lack of any resolution to her complaints of discrimination based on race. Dr. Carter told Plaintiff she did not have a timeline for any resolution and that Plaintiff should continue working as usual until she followed up on Plaintiff's concerns. Compl. ¶ 61.
On December 5, Plaintiff participated in a meeting with Dr. Paquette and Dr. Carter as a follow up to the concerns of bullying, failing to maintain a harmonious work environment, potential breach of confidentiality, and potential inappropriate referrals. Plaintiff alleges that the meeting itself was retaliatory, bullying, and created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff was asked during the meeting what she would do to remedy the hostile work environment, and Plaintiff suggested a mediation with staff. Compl. ¶ 63.
On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff sent an email to Dr. Carter regarding Claudia and her providing misinformation to others.[5]
In June 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging race discrimination, national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff saw a coworker outside of work, who was with Franklin Ellis. Plaintiff spoke to both men, and Ellis responded that they were not friends and there was no need for Plaintiff to pretend that they were. Plaintiff later learned that Ellis was reporting information regarding Plaintiff to the new Director of Counseling Services, Defendant Angel Onley-Livingston. Compl. ¶ 66.
On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff was at lunch for a co-worker's birthday when another employee made negative statements regarding Asian persons and restaurants. Compl. ¶ 67.
The same day, Plaintiff had a meeting with Onley-Livingston, who had only been working with Plaintiff for less than two weeks. During the meeting, Onley-Livingston became combative and argumentative, Compl. ¶ 67.
On August 12, 2020, Onley-Livingston posted a threatening Facebook video in which she state that she was going to dismantle the working environment, that the enemy was present and other comments about evil spirits, killing and destroying, and going into enemy camp. Plaintiff alleges these statements had a negative impact on Plaintiff's employment. Compl. ¶ 69.
On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff was scheduled to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial