Porter v. The Regents of the Univ. of Colo.

• Decision Date: 28 March 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-cv-00335-MDB
• Parties: WHITNEY PORTER, M.A., Plaintiff, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, a body corporate, and VENKATESHWAR “VENKAT” REDDY, in his official and individual capacities, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

1

WHITNEY PORTER, M.A., Plaintiff, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, a body corporate, and VENKATESHWAR “VENKAT” REDDY, in his official and individual capacities, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-cv-00335-MDB

United States District Court, D. Colorado

March 28, 2023

ORDER

MARITZA DOMINGUEZ BRASWELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Regents of the University of Colorado [“Board of Regents”] and Defendant Venkateshwar Reddy's [collectively “Defendants”] Motion to Dismiss. ([“Motion”], Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff Whitney Porter has responded to the Motion ([“Response”] Doc. No. 36), to which Defendants have replied. ([“Reply”], Doc. No. 37.) After considering the Motion, the related briefing, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion to Dismiss.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff a woman, has been employed in various roles by the University of Colorado [“CU”] since earning a master's degree in 2007. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 18-19.) Plaintiff has spent the entirety of her employment at CU's Colorado Springs campus [“UCCS”]. (See generally Doc. No. 1.) Throughout her employment, Defendant Reddy, a male, has served as Plaintiff's superior-first as the Dean of the UCCS College of Business and later as the Chancellor of UCCS. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action, alleging that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Defendant Reddy, and through its agent, the Board of Regents, discriminated against her and fostered a hostile work environment on the basis of her gender, and further retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. (Id. at 19-21.) Plaintiff also asserts constitutional due process, equal protection, and First Amendment claims via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 21-22.)

I. Plaintiff's Employment at UCCS College of Business

In 2007, Plaintiff was hired as an academic advisor at the UCCS College of Business. (Id. ¶ 20.) In 2011, Plaintiff was promoted to senior academic advisor. (Id. ¶ 21.) Then, in December 2014, Plaintiff was appointed as the Assistant Director of Graduate Programs in the UCCS College of Business for the Graduate School of Business Administration. (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff was in this role until she transferred to a position in the UCCS College of Education in June 2017. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff alleges that she was “forced out” of her Assistant Director of Graduate Programs position [“Assistant Director”]. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that during her time as an Assistant Director, she was subjected to “repeated acts of discrimination and harassment,” a “pattern of traumatizing and humiliating mistreatment,” and “a sexist and toxic work environment.” (Id. at 7, ¶¶ 32, 33.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Reddy, then the College's dean, fueled this treatment, by having a “palpable” and “apparent” “discriminatory animus” towards her. (Id. ¶4.)

Plaintiff describes various alleged practices of Defendant Reddy to support her assertions. First, Plaintiff alleges that at “the direction of then-Dean Defendant Reddy, the Dean's office monitored Plaintiff's arrival and departure times on a daily basis.” (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges that a student employee in the office “routinely received calls from the Dean's surrogates at the conclusion of Plaintiff's workdays, inquiring as to her whereabouts.” (Id. ¶ 37.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Reddy “would send his subordinates to her office at around 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ... on the pretext of inquiring about extraneous items, which could easily have been asked about via-emails .to intimidate or harass Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff says she was the only one whose hours were regularly monitored. (Id. ¶ 36.)

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants made it difficult for her to take days off due to illness. Plaintiff was allegedly required to get a doctor's note for any sick day, even though CU policy only requires a note for sick leaves longer than three days. (Id. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff suffers from migraine headaches and was allegedly required to obtain a doctor's note for any day missed due to a migraine. (Id. ¶ 40.) Plaintiff alleges she was the only person “asked to provide a medical note in order to take a [single] sick day.” (Id. ¶ 44.) Additionally, Plaintiff describes an alleged incident in which, even though she was “violently ill and obtained a doctor's note,” she was “mandated [to] .. come to the office, and advised that if she did not come to work she would be terminated.” (Id. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants claimed that Plaintiff had no remaining sick days, a statement that was simpl[y] false and conjured to justify their harassing behaviors...With no reasonable alternative... Plaintiff obliged, obtained a doctor's note, and presented to work.” (Id. ¶¶ 46, 49.)

Plaintiff identifies other examples of a hostile office environment. First, Plaintiff alleges that when the air conditioning system broke in her building, causing the temperature to be over 90 degrees in her office, all affected employees, except herself, were allowed to leave the office and work from home. (Id. ¶¶ 51-52; see id. ¶¶ 53-54 (“Plaintiff was told that she had to remain in the building because she lacked an adequate set up with which to telecommute for the remainder of the day ... Contrary to Defendants' baseless assertion, Plaintiff was completely capable of working from home.”).) Second, Plaintiff contends that in February 2016, she was “was forced to remain in her office and told that she could not leave it until she complete[ly] filed documents in accordance with an archaic, outdated paper system, despite the fact that UCCS moved to a digitalized system.” (Id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiff contends that this demand was made by Wendy Adoretti, Defendant Reddy's subordinate. (Id. ¶ 58; see id. ¶ 60 (“Ms. Adoretti punitively forced Plaintiff to spend hours on this task for no reason whatsoever in order to undermine and abase Plaintiff, who was made to feel like a prisoner, which was the precise intent of the order.”).) Third, Plaintiff alleges that “although others were permitted to leave work early by shifting their hours earlier in the day, Plaintiff's ability to do so was at the whim of her supervisors.” (Id. ¶ 61.) “Regularly, Plaintiff would be assigned new work at 4:00 p.m. and told that if she were committed to the job, she should be willing to work extra hours.” (Id. ¶ 62; see id. ¶ 64 (“These “11th Hour” assignments were not emergent, were designed to demoralize Plaintiff, and were punitive in nature.”).)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants undermined her: “Routine decision-making as to student issues within the purview of Plaintiff's job were questioned and dismissed on the ground that she lacked authority, experience or the wherewithal or autonomy to perform basic tasks.” (Id. ¶ 75.) She alleges that “the then-undergraduate director, Rashell McCann, would tell students that Plaintiff was ‘misadvising' them ... to undermine the students' trust in Plaintiff and cause rumors to that effect to disseminate.” (Id. ¶ 65.) Plaintiff also alleges that she was falsely accused of being an alcoholic and drinking inappropriately during a work event, saying the accusation was “baseless and defamatory” and made to degrade and humiliate Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 76, 78.)

Plaintiff contends she was not alone in feeling subject to a hostile environment while working for the College of Business. She alleges “three others, including the [department's] director, quit their jobs because they could not endure the hostile work environment or were discharged.”^[1](Id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiff also alleges that the female director hired as a replacement “expressed to Plaintiff that there was a targeted goal of discharging Plaintiff,” and further, this new director “expressed that she too was subject to a toxic work environment” and “left her job because she had been micromanaged and degraded by Defendant Reddy and his subordinates.” (Id. ¶¶ 72-75.)

Plaintiff alleges that she engaged the human resources department “on numerous occasions” while working for the College of Business. (Id. ¶ 81.) However, Plaintiff alleges that when she “attempted to file grievances with the human resources department, no corrective action was taken” and further, the human resources department “advised [her] that she should leave her position at the College of Business and begin working for a different college within CU.” (Id. ¶ 82.) Plaintiff also alleges that her grievances “caused superiors to escalate their aggression toward her.” (Id. ¶¶ 81, 82.)

Plaintiff alleges that “prior to 2016, Plaintiff had never received an unsatisfactory annual work evaluation,” but she received a “below expectations” rating for the first time after the 2016 academic year. (Id. ¶¶ 93, 96.) Plaintiff alleges this evaluation was part of “a campaign” to “get her to quit her job or to discharge her on pretextual grounds.” (Id. ¶ 91.) Plaintiff was given a “performance improvement plan,” and it “was made clear s if she failed to meet these performance expectations, she would be terminated at the conclusion of this probationary period.” (Id. ¶¶ 96, 97.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that when she inquired why her performance had not met expectations, she was given confusing reasons, such as she did not “fit the business culture” or too often had worked with her office door closed. (Id. ¶¶ 98-99.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that though she had several one-on-one meetings with her supervisor during the 2016 year, “no behavioral or substantive performance issues were ever brought to her attention. In fact, in 2016, Plaintiff alleges she was nominated for the ‘Advisor of the Year' award.” (Id. ¶ 100.)

By 2017, “Plaintiff...