Royan v. Chi. State Univ.

• Decision Date: 09 June 2022
• Docket Number: 20-cv-2014
• Parties: AYLA ROYAN, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY and ELMER GENTRY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

AYLA ROYAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY and ELMER GENTRY, Defendants.

No. 20-cv-2014

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

June 9, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARY M. ROWLAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff brings this disability discrimination action against Chicago State University and College of Pharmacy Dean Elmer Gentry. Defendant Gentry moves to dismiss Count II, a § 1983 procedural due process claim. [59]. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

I. Background

The following factual allegations are taken from the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 56) and are accepted as true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss. See W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016).^[1]The Court discusses the facts relevant to the claim at issue.

Plaintiff Ayla Royan was a student at the College of Pharmacy at Defendant Chicago State University for a Doctor of Pharmacy degree. Dkt. 56 at ¶ 8. By 2019, she had completed more than three years of the four-year program. Id. at ¶ 9. During her coursework, Royan earned mostly B's and C's, and never failed a class. Id. at ¶12.

1

From May 2017 to September 2018, Royan took a leave of absence from school to address her eating disorder and periodic depression, which are considered medical conditions. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. After returning to school, Plaintiff started a rotation with Dr. Shivani Patel. Id. at ¶ 18. The first four weeks of the rotation were uneventful, but during the next week Royan asked to be excused from her rotation after a difficult session with her physician. Id. at ¶ 20. Dr. Patel excused her absence but the next day asked why she needed to be excused. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23. When Dr. Patel learned about Royan's medical condition, he stated that Royan may attempt to hurt herself. Plaintiff alleges that over the next week Dr. Patel made comments about her anxiety and told her that she should not be a pharmacist. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 32. Royan turned to another professor, Dr. Bishop, for counsel and while they were speaking, she cried. Dr. Bishop told her to go home. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38. Ten days later, Dr. Bishop and another faculty member met with her and informed her that she would receive an F in Dr. Patel's course because she left the clinic without permission. Id. at ¶¶ 42-44. Plaintiff was also required to meet with a doctor, social worker and third person to discuss her medical condition. Id. at ¶ 46. At that time, she went to complain to Defendant Dr. Elmer Gentry, the Dean of the College of Pharmacy. Id. at ¶ 49.

Gentry stated that “he had to be cautious, and the College could not be responsible if she hurt herself.” Id. at ¶ 50. Plaintiff was reassigned to another professor's rotation, Dr. Kerner, despite her objection because the professor had verbally abused her in the past. Id. at ¶ 52. At the end of the rotation, Dr. Kerner told Royan she would fail and be dismissed from the College because her attitude was not

2

professional. Id. at ¶ 56. On July 23, 2019, Royan “received word” that she had been dismissed from the College. Id. at ¶ 58.

The College of Pharmacy Student Handbook outlines a grievance procedure for dismissed students. Id. at ¶ 59. The Handbook provides that students may appeal their dismissal to the Dean of the College. By August 9, 2019, Royan, through counsel, filed an appeal of her dismissal. Id. at ¶ 60. Royan did not receive a response. Id. at ¶ 82. Royan's counsel followed up with Gentry's office. At that time, Gentry's staff told Royan's counsel to contact the legal department at CSU. Id. at ¶ 83. Royan's counsel contacted the legal department but received no response to several phone messages or email. Id. at ¶ 85-86. When the second amended complaint was filed, Royan had not received a response to her appeal. Id. at ¶ 88.

Gentry moves to dismiss Royan's claim against him for denying her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. Standard

A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint, not the merits of the case. Gibson v. City of Chi., 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). “To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must provide enough factual information to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citation omitted). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”). A court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6)

3

motion accepts plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all permissible inferences in plaintiff's favor. Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., 763 F.3d 696, 700 (7th Cir. 2014). A plaintiff need not plead “detailed factual allegations, ” but “still must provide more than mere labels and conclusions or a...