Thompson v. Ohio State Univ.

• Citation: 990 F.Supp.2d 801
• Decision Date: 06 January 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:12–cv–1087.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
• Parties: Tracy THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. The OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

990 F.Supp.2d 801

Tracy THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
The OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:12–cv–1087.

United States District Court,
S.D. Ohio,
Eastern Division.

Jan. 6, 2014.

[990 F.Supp.2d 805]

Christopher Haas, John C. Camillus, Law Offices of John C. Camillus, LLC, Charles Horne Cooper, Jr., Rex H. Elliott, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff.

Lindsay M. Sestile, Assistant Attorney General, Education Section, Reid T. Caryer, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 29), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 33), and Defendants' reply in support (ECF No. 34). Defendants seek dismissal on the ground that Plaintiff's substantive allegations fail to state a relief upon which relief can be granted; alternatively, the individual defendants seek dismissal of the claims against them on the ground of qualified immunity.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion. The Court dismisses Count II of Plaintiff's amended complaint, alleging a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on substantive due process. Count I (First Amendment retaliation), Count III (equal protection), and Count IV (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) survive dismissal on the pleadings and may go forward.

I.

Plaintiff Tracy Thompson brings this action against Defendants The Ohio State University (“OSU” or “the University”) and three individuals, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges the following facts, which the Court treats as true for purposes of determining whether Plaintiff states a valid claim for relief. See Bower v. Federal Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir.1996).

In the fall of 2009, Plaintiff enrolled in the Master's in Health Administration Program at OSU's College of Public Health. Of the approximately 31 students in the Master's program, Plaintiff was the only African–American. When she enrolled, Plaintiff anticipated that she would graduate with her Master's degree in the spring of 2011.

During the winter 2010 quarter, Plaintiff took a Health Care Operations course taught by Defendant Sharon Schweikhart, Ph.D., who is white. During her time in Dr. Schweikart's class, Plaintiff began to feel as though Dr. Schweikhart disliked her and singled her out for mistreatment. For example, when Plaintiff failed a midterm examination and asked Dr. Schweikhart how she could improve her performance in the class, Dr. Schweikhart responded by saying simply that Plaintiff should “figure it out.” Other students in the class noticed Dr. Schweikhart's behavior toward Plaintiff. Classmates told Plaintiff that Dr. Schweikhart “hates [Thompson's] guts”

[990 F.Supp.2d 806]

and that they felt Dr. Schweikhart's treatment of Plaintiff was inappropriate.

During the fall 2010 quarter, Plaintiff took a Health Care Information Systems course, also taught by Dr. Schweikhart. During that quarter, Plaintiff submitted a paper in which she utilized a particular informal citation style that Dr. Schweikhart instructed the class to use. Despite the paper being cited in the manner she instructed, Dr. Schweikhart complained to OSU's Committee of Academic Misconduct, accusing Plaintiff of plagiarism. Despite the fact that other students in the class used the same citation style, Dr. Schweikhart did not accuse any of the white students of plagiarism. Plaintiff was the third student whom Dr. Schweikhart referred for academic misconduct during her 20 years as an OSU professor. Of the three students Dr. Schweikhart has ever referred for academic misconduct, all were African–American.

In January 2011, Thompson complained to OSU's Office of Student Advocacy and Office of Human Resources about Dr. Schweikhart. Specifically, Plaintiff complained that Dr. Schweikhart was discriminating against her on the basis of race. Plaintiff made similar complaints of race discrimination to other departments within the University. The University did not investigate Plaintiff's complaints of race discrimination.

The plagiarism charge against Plaintiff went to a hearing before OSU's Committee of Academic Misconduct. Plaintiff was not permitted to discuss or present evidence of the fact that other students in the class used the same citation style Plaintiff had used on the paper in question. Following the hearing, the Committee found Plaintiff guilty of plagiarism. As a sanction, the Committee gave Plaintiff a failing grade in the Health Care Information Systems course and suspended Plaintiff for the following spring and summer quarters. The conditions of Plaintiff's suspension stated—

A student who has been dismissed or suspended from the university shall be denied all privileges afforded a student and shall be required to vacate campus at a time determined by the hearing officer or panel. In addition, after vacating campus property, a suspended or dismissed student may not enter upon campus and/or other university property at any time, for any purpose, in the absence of express written permission from the vice president for student affairs or his/her designee. To seek such permission, a suspended or dismissed student must file a written petition to the vice president for student affairs for entrance to the campus for a limited, specified purpose or to have the terms of his condition modified or reduced.

Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed the Committee's decision and sanction. Because the suspension did not take effect until the spring quarter, Plaintiff was allowed to complete the winter quarter that was ongoing at the time the Committee handed down its decision.

While she was suspended, Plaintiff inquired of various faculty members in her program at OSU for guidance on how she should proceed towards her degree once her suspension was lifted. When Plaintiff's communications were ignored, Plaintiff communicated in writing to Dr. Javaune Adams–Gaston, the Vice President for Student Life,¹ and Dr. Stanley Lemeshow, Dean of the College of Public Health. Plaintiff asked Drs. Gaston and Lemeshow for a meeting to discuss Plaintiff's

[990 F.Supp.2d 807]

continued pursuit of her degree. Plaintiff's letter mentioned her concerns about racial discrimination and Plaintiff's desire to continue in the Master's program without being subjected to further discriminatory treatment. Plaintiff did not receive a response.

Plaintiff's suspension meant that her graduation from the Master's program would be delayed by one year. Even though the suspension covered only two quarters, the only remaining class that Plaintiff needed to complete her degree was offered only during the spring quarter. Because Plaintiff's suspension became effective during spring quarter, Plaintiff had to wait until the following spring to take the course and complete her degree requirements.

At the time of Plaintiff's suspension, Plaintiff was enrolled in a “Six–Sigma” course at the University's College of Business. The course was a six credit hour class that spanned from winter quarter through the first half of the spring quarter. Thus, due to the terms of the suspension, Plaintiff would have been unable to complete the Six–Sigma course. Plaintiff therefore met with Dr. Adams–Gaston to ask whether she could obtain permission to complete the six-sigma course notwithstanding the suspension. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Adams–Gaston told her it was acceptable for Plaintiff to complete the Six–Sigma course so long as it was also acceptable to the professor. At Plaintiff's request, the Six–Sigma professor agreed to allow Plaintiff to complete the course.

In order to complete her work in the Six–Sigma course, it was necessary for Plaintiff to go on campus on a number of occasions. On each of these occasions, Plaintiff obtained permission from Dr. Adams–Gaston to be on campus. Plaintiff ultimately completed the course and then completed the rest of her suspension.

Not long after Plaintiff's suspension period ended, Plaintiff learned that she was being charged with two new violations of the University Student Conduct Policy. Specifically, Plaintiff was charged with “dishonest conduct” and “failure to comply with sanctions.” Defendant Ann Salimbene, Ph.D., was the individual responsible for filing the misconduct charges against Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Salimbene is a friend and colleague of Dr. Schweikhart.

The gravamen of the misconduct charges against Plaintiff was that she did not receive proper permission to enter upon campus to complete the Six–Sigma course. According to the charges, Dr. Adams–Gaston lacked the authority to permit Plaintiff to complete the Six–Sigma course and that Plaintiff should have known that Dr. Adams–Gaston lacked such authority. It was Plaintiff's position that Dr. Adams–Gaston was the specific person from whom she had to obtain permission to enter campus under the terms of the suspension.

The charges against Plaintiff proceeded to a hearing before the University Conduct Board. Dr. Salimbene argued in favor of disciplining Plaintiff. Following the hearing, the Conduct Board found in favor of Plaintiff on the dishonest conduct charge. The Conduct Board, however, found that Plaintiff failed to comply with a sanction. As a result of its finding, the Conduct Board suspended Plaintiff from the University from March 9, 2012 through August 12, 2012.

Plaintiff appealed the ruling. Defendant Gretchen Metzlaars, Ph.D., the Senior Associate Vice President in the Office of the Vice President for Student Life, presided over Plaintiff's appeal. Dr. Metzlaars denied Plaintiff's appeal, finding that “all circumstances were considered during your

[990 F.Supp.2d 808]

judicial process and that the disciplinary process was appropriate.” Dr. Metzlaars...