Ruizhu Dai v. Son Le
| Docket Number | 3:22-CV-01551 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2023 |
| Parties | RUIZHU DAI v. SON LE, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY MAG. JUDGE
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 31] filed by Defendants, Son Le (“Le”), Kirk Ring (“Ring”), William McCumber (“McCumber”), Christopher Martin (“Martin”), Terry McConathy (“McConathy”), and Les Guice (“Guice”) (collectively “Defendants”). Rachael Dai (“Plaintiff”) filed a response in opposition [Doc. No. 33], and Defendants filed a reply [Doc. No. 34].
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action asserting five claims against Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants (1) discriminated against her by depriving her of her First Amendment rights; (2) retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights; (3) deprived her of procedural due process; (4) violated her equal protection rights; and (5) breached their employment contract.[1]As to claims one through four, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), 2000c-8, 2000c-9, and 2000h-1.[2]As to claim five, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable under applicable Louisiana State law.[3] Plaintiff enrolled in the Doctoral program to pursue a Doctorate in Management at Louisiana Tech University in the Fall Semester of 2019.[4] Upon her acceptance, Plaintiff was made a graduate assistant (“GA”) and received a yearly stipend of $15,000.[5]As a part of the Doctoral program, each participating student must present their research paper to faculty and students; during the presentation, students must defend their position and research.[6]On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff presented her research paper to Le and Ring, both professors in the Management Department. Plaintiff's presentation was met with criticism.[7]
Plaintiff alleges that Le “vehemently criticized” her research.[8]However, Defendants assert that Plaintiff seemed unprepared in discussing her research paper and could not give satisfactory answers to questions.[9] Moreover, according to Defendants, Plaintiff was “defensive, argumentative, and hostile.”[10] After her presentation concluded, Plaintiff alleged that Ring effectively called her an idiot in front of the class and other professors.[11]Conversely, Defendants stated that Ring was merely encouraging students to listen to the constructive criticism of their professors.[12]Immediately following the presentation, Plaintiff was removed from her teaching assignment that was assigned to her as a part of her GA responsibilities and received a grade of “D” on the presentation, which dropped her overall course grade to a “C.”[13]
In response to the criticism and associated repercussions, Plaintiff sent an email to McCumber, Chair of the Management Department, and Le, which reads:
Following the above-quoted email, McCumber emailed Plaintiff on October 13, 2021, scheduling a meeting for October 18, 2021.[15]McCumber and Ring attended the meeting along with Dr. Gilbert from student affairs. At the meeting, Defendants discussed Plaintiff's email and questioned whether Plaintiff had a viable research topic.[16]Defendants allege that in an attempt to motivate Plaintiff to find a viable topic, her time to form a dissertation committee was cut to two months.[17]Plaintiff was also completely removed from her position as a GA.[18]Additionally, on October 13, 2021, Dr. Bruce Walters, a professor who agreed to chair Plaintiff's dissertation, notified Plaintiff that he would no longer hold that position.[19]
On October 28, 2021, Plaintiff appealed her grade and her termination as a GA to Martin, Dean of the College of Business.[20]Martin initiated an investigation speaking with professors, reviewing Plaintiff's paper and presentation materials, and assessing other students' grades.[21]Defendants contend that Martin's review revealed poor work quality and evidence that Plaintiff had declined to complete work required by her graduate assistantship.[22]After his review, Martin decided to uphold the grade and termination decisions.[23]
On November 14, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Guice, President of Louisiana Tech University, asking that he intervene on her grade and termination decisions; however, Guice upheld both decisions.[24]Plaintiff did not form a dissertation committee and resigned from the doctoral program in the Spring semester of 2022.[25]Plaintiff contends that she was unable to form a dissertation committee because Defendants ruined her reputation.[26]
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that they are entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and cannot be held liable in their official capacities.[27]Furthermore, Defendants argue that they have not violated any constitutional right of the Plaintiff and are entitled to qualified immunity for claims asserted against them in their individual capacities.[28]In response, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants waived sovereign immunity as provided by the Eleventh Amendment and that an exception exists allowing her to recover even if Defendants are protected by sovereign immunity.[29]Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and reasserts that they have violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.[30]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) states:
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense--or the part of each claim or defense--on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
“If the moving party meets the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.” Distribuidora Mari Jose, S.A. de C.V. v. Transmaritime, Inc., 738 F.3d 703, 706 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
“[A] party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). However, in evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the Court must accept the evidence of the nonmovant as credible and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. “A non-conclusory affidavit can create genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment, even if the affidavit is self-serving and uncorroborated.” Lester v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 805 Fed.Appx. 288, 291 (5th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). Note that “a district court has somewhat greater discretion to consider what weight it will accord the evidence in a bench trial than in a jury trial.” Matter of Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394, 397 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Nunez v. Superior Oil Co., 572 F.2d 1119, 1124 (5th Cir. 1978).
Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. First, Defendants argue that they are entitled to sovereign immunity on all claims asserted against them in their official capacity. Next, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all claims asserted...
To continue reading
Request your trial