Varlesi v. Wayne State Univ.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–CV–14793.
• Citation: 909 F.Supp.2d 827
• Parties: Tina M. VARLESI, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

909 F.Supp.2d 827

Tina M. VARLESI, Plaintiff,

v.WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10–CV–14793.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

Feb. 16, 2012.

Deborah L. Gordon, Deborah L. Gordon Assoc., Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.

Megan P. Norris, Muhammad Misbah Shahid, Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, Heather G. Ptasznik, John T. Below, Kotz, Sangster, Lauren M. Phillips, Patrick F. Hickey, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Detroit, MI for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT THE SALVATION ARMY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT JOYCE STEFANSKI'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, CAROL PREMO, ANWAR NAJOR–DURACK, PHYLIS I. VROOM, SHAWNA J. LEE, MARGARET BRUNHOFER, AND ANTONIO GONZALES–PRENDES

MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Tina M. Varlesi, a former graduate student enrolled at Wayne State University's School of Social Work, alleges that she was unlawfully dismissed from the program because she was unwed and pregnant. Defendants are: (1) Wayne State University (WSU), (2) Carol Premo, (3) Anwar Najor–Durack, (4) Phyllis I. Vroom, (5) Shawna J. Lee, (6) Antonio Gonzales–Prendes, (7) Margaret Brunhofer, (8) The Salvation Army (SA), and (9) Joyce Stefanski. Defendants (2) through (7) are faculty at WSU. Defendant (9) is an employee of SA, one of the entities at which Plaintiff performed her field placement internship.

Plaintiff asserts seven claims in her Second Amended Complaint:

Count I: Sex, pregnancy, and marital-status discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Title IX). Plaintiff also mentions sexual harassment in this count. This count is asserted against WSU, SA, Premo, Durack, and Vroom.

Count II: Retaliation in violation of Title IX. This claim is asserted against WSU, SA, Premo, Durack, and Vroom.

Count III: Sex, pregnancy, and marital-status discrimination in violation of Michigan's Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. (ELCRA). This count is asserted against Premo, Durack, and Vroom.

Count IV: Sex, pregnancy, and marital-status discrimination in violation of the ELCRA. This count is asserted against SA and Stefanski.

Count V: Retaliation in violation of the ELCRA. This count is asserted against Premo, Durack, Vroom, SA, and Stefanski.

Count VI: Substantive and procedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This count is asserted against Premo, Durack, Vroom, Lee, Prendes, and Brunhofer.

Count VII: Tortious interference with a contractual relationship and tortious interference with a business expectancy. This count is asserted against Stefanski.

Now before the Court are three defense motions for summary judgment: one each by SA (Dkt. 54) and Stefanski (Dkt. 55), and one by WSU, Premo, Durack, Vroom, Lee, Brunhofer, and Prendes (Dkt. 56).¹ All three motions are fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on December 15, 2011. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the first two motions in their entirety and grant in part and deny in part the motion of the WSU Defendants.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff began as a Master's degree student at WSU's School of Social Work (MSW) in the fall of 2006. WSU Statement of Material & Undisputed Facts (WSU Fact) # 1. The two-year program is designed to prepare students for an advanced-level professional social work practice. WSU Fact # 3. To successfully complete the program, students must complete academic coursework and sixteen credit hours (225 hours) of field placement. WSU Fact # 4. According to WSU's Field Education Manual, the field work component “helps student integrate classroom learning and reinforce course content.” Pl. Ex. B at 10. Plaintiff excelled academically, earning a 3.67 grade point average. Pl. Ex. F; Statement of Additional Material Facts (Pl. Fact) # 28. She also successfully performed her field placement requirement at Spectrum Human Services, a child welfare agency, during her first year of the program, earning strong performance reviews from her field supervisors. Pl. Exs. G & H; Pl. Facts 16–27.

During the first semester of her second year, Plaintiff was first placed at the Veterans Administration Hospital (VA) to complete her field work. WSU Fact # 33. Defendants say that Plaintiff was “terminated” from this assignment due to performance issues. Plaintiff says that she “refused to return” to the VA. WSU Facts 47–48; Pl. Fact # 64. Regardless, the record reflects that Plaintiff did not perform adequately while at the VA in the opinion of her supervisor, Pamela Mackey. Pl. Ex. 11. Mackey, a clinical social worker at the VA and Plaintiff's field supervisor, wrote a detailed letter to WSU in which she expressed “very serious concerns about [Plaintiff's] work ethic, values, and goals.” WSU Ex. 11. In the letter, Mackey states that she requested from WSU that Plaintiff “not be allowed to return [to work at the VA].” Id. In addition, Mackey submitted an evaluation of Plaintiff to WSU, in which Mackey assigned “does not meet” ratings in approximately 30 of 53 categories. Pl. Ex. 11. Plaintiff received “marginal” ratings in the bulk of the remaining categories. Id.

Early during her placement at the VA—on September 24, 2007—Plaintiff learned that she was pregnant. Plaintiff immediately informed Premo (her faculty advisor) and Mackey. WSU Fact # 37.

Plaintiff was originally given a grade of “incomplete” for her VA internship, but Premo later decided to give Plaintiff “another chance” and changed the grade to “satisfactory.” WSU Facts 26, 64. Premo testified that she could not justify failing Plaintiff because she could not discern whether Plaintiff's poor evaluation was the result of incompetence/inability or simply a poor working relationship with Mackey. Premo Dep. at 96. Premo knew that Plaintiff was pregnant when she elected not to fail her. WSU Fact # 58.

For her final field internship, Plaintiff was assigned to SA and, specifically, the Romulus Adult Rehabilitation Center (RARC), an in-house residential and rehabilitation center for men with substance abuse problems. Pl. Fact # 82. The following facts about SA and RARC are pertinent:

• SA is an international, non-profit, religious, charitable organization, and has been recognized, for all purposes, as a church. Higgins Aff. ¶ 2.² Its mission statement is as follows:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church.

Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

Pl. Ex. B.

• SA operates many religious and charitable units, including Harbor Light Centers, Corps Community Centers, senior citizen centers and clubs, camps, children day-care centers, temporary housing, and Adult Rehabilitation Centers (ARCs). Higgins Aff. ¶ 3.

• ARCs constitute the principal means whereby SA practices its religion in the rehabilitation of “spiritually and socially handicapped individuals” through a residential program of religious teaching, counseling, and work therapy. Each ARC is a self-contained religious community with living quarters for residents, known as “beneficiaries,” as well as a chapel, a dining room, and a recreation room. The main purpose of ARCs is to “provide spiritual, social and emotional assistance to men and women who have lost the ability to cope with their problems and provide for themselves.” SA Ex. C. The main purpose of ARCs is not to prepare its beneficiaries to pursue a technical, skilled, or semiskilled occupation or trade; ARCs offer no degree or other certificate programs. Higgins Aff. ¶¶ 9–11. However, RARC offers GED classes. Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute ¶ 82.

• Potential participants in SA's ARC programs undergo a comprehensive intake interview to ensure the program is a good match. SA Ex. C.

• SA does not compensate individuals who are placed by schools or universities for the purpose of meeting hourly field work requirements for credits. Thus, Plaintiff was an unpaid, volunteer intern at RARC. Likewise, SA received no compensation from WSU for accepting Plaintiff as an intern. Higgins Aff. ¶¶ 12–13.

• According to Higgins, no contract exists between WSU and SA regarding student field work placement, and WSU has no affiliation with SA other than having students placed there to complete their field work. Id. ¶ 14. WSU's Field Placement Manual, however, states that “affiliation agreements” between the school and the field placement agency are mandatory: “If an affiliation agreement is declined, students cannot be placed at the agency ....” The manual states that such agreements are to include the terms and conditions of the field placement. Pl. Ex. B at 47. The manual repeatedly describes the relationship between WSU and the field placement agency as a “partnership,” id. at 6–8, and states that field placement sites are committed to “an education function.” Id. at 15.

Defendant Stefanski was Plaintiff's field supervisor at RARC. Stefanski interviewed Plaintiff and invited her to come on board as a field intern in December 2007. WSU Fact # 59. Stefanski knew that Plaintiff was pregnant at the time of the interview. WSU Fact # 60. On January 7, 2008, Plaintiff's first day as an intern, Stefanski said to Plaintiff: “I see you have a ring on your finger” and asked if she was married. Plaintiff said “no.” Pl. Dep. at 314; WSU Facts 134–136.³ The WSU Defendants concede that this exchange took place. Pl. Facts 134–136.

Plaintiff testified that after this conversation, in which Stefanski purportedly first learned that Plaintiff was unmarried, things between her and Stefanski “seemed to go south.” Pl. Dep. at 315....