Young v. W.Va. Univ.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:21-CV-35 |
| Parties | BRYANT KEITH YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, and DR. KATHLEEN O'HEARN RYAN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
KLEEH JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED
On March 15, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Bryant Keith Young filed a Complaint against Defendants Dr. Kathleen O'Hearn Ryan West Virginia University, and West Virginia University Board of Governors. [ECF No. 1]. On April 16, 2021, Defendants Dr Kathleen O'Hearn Ryan, West Virginia University, and West Virginia University Board of Governors filed a Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 9 and 10]. On the same day Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 11 and 12]. The undersigned is also in receipt of Plaintiff's Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, [ECF No. 14], Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 16], and Plaintiff's Response Opposing to Defendants' Reply, [ECF No. 17].
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Amended Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 9 and 11], be GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 1], be DISMISSED.
Bryant Keith Young (“Plaintiff” or “Young”) is a fifty-six-year old African American man and SAG-AFTRA union actor. Young was enrolled as an undergraduate student at West Virginia University (“WVU”) in Morgantown, West Virginia for the Spring 2020 semester. Young was enrolled in an English 200-level course taught by Dr. Kathleen O'Hearn Ryan (“Dr. Ryan” or “Defendant Ryan”), a professor at WVU.
During the early spring semester, Plaintiff asked a number of WVU students, including several female students in the English course, whether they would like to participate in an independent short film project that he was going to shoot in West Virginia.
In March 2020, Dr. Ryan called Young into her office where she informed him that she had received complaints that he was pressuring some female students to be part of the film. A student had complained to one of Dr. Ryan's professor-colleagues; this student and the colleague subsequently came to Dr. Ryan with the allegations. Young told her the allegations were false, that he saw talent in these students, and the students agreed to be part of his project. Dr. Ryan told Young “Well, let them use that talent for something else.” [ECF No. 1 at 3].
Young later learned that Dr. Ryan also called additional female students (who were never asked to be a part of his project) to her office and mentioned Young to these students during their meetings.
Around July 2020, Young requested the Office of Student Conduct investigate the student(s) who had made the purportedly false allegations against him. Carrie Showalter (“Showalter”) and Jill Gibson (“Gibson”) from the Office of Student Conduct stated there was not a complaint made against Young. Young contacted James Goins, Jr. (“Goins”), Director of Equity Assurance/Title IX Coordinator (Sexual Misconduct). Goins informed Young that Dr. Ryan attempted to have Goins investigate Young for sexual misconduct and Goins denied her request. Goins stated that Young's actions did not constitute sexual misconduct.
As part of the English course, Dr. Ryan read a Shakespearean poem with sexual connotations to the class and asked the class to write a poem as part of a related assignment. When reviewing Young's poem, Dr. Ryan stated to Young, “due to the climate, you should not read a poem with sexual innuendos.” [ECF No. 1 at 5]. Young ultimately had to rewrite his poem as a result. Young believes Dr. Ryan did not want Young to write a poem with sexual innuendos because Dr. Ryan had “decided Plaintiff was a sexual deviant and that the Plaintiff committed sexual malfeasance and the student would be offended.” [Id.].
Young suffered from distress as a result of the allegedly discriminatory conduct and false allegations. He constantly emailed the Office of Student Conduct, specifically Showalter, “hoping for some relief, justification, and closure, which [Young] did not receive, maybe no fault of Showalter's own.” [ECF No. 1 at 7]. Plaintiff graduated from WVU in Fall 2020.
On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff Young filed his pro se Complaint in this Court against Defendants Dr. Kathleen Hearn O'Ryan, West Virginia University, and West Virginia University Board of Governors.
A. Plaintiffs' Complaint [ECF No. 1]
In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings five causes of actions against Defendants: (1) denial of due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 7 of the West Virginia Constitution; (2) denial of freedom of speech pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 7 of the West Virginia Constitution; (3) age discrimination under 34 C.F.R. 110; (4) race discrimination under 34 C.F.R. 100; and (5) making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287.
Plaintiff first claims Defendants violated Plaintiff's procedural due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 7 of the West Virginia Constitution because Dr. Ryan conducted her own investigation into the Plaintiff's alleged sexual misconduct. Plaintiff next claims Dr. Ryan violated his freedom of speech rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 7 of the West Virginia Constitution, by denying him the opportunity to write or read a poem with sexual innuendos.
Plaintiff brings a third claim of age discrimination, citing to 34 C.F.R. 110. Plaintiff states that it is his “opinion that Dr. Ryan implemented these actions due to him being a much older student, which constitutes age discrimination[, ]” and he “feels that his age is a direct cause of Dr. Ryan's actions, performing her own investigations and accusing him of doing something wrong by asking female students to be part of film project.” [ECF No. 1 at 5]. Plaintiff brings a fourth claim of racial discrimination, citing 34 C.F.R. 100. Plaintiff simply states he [ECF No. 1 at 6].
Fifth and last, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Ryan violated 18 U.S.C. § 287 by “cho[osing] to investigate him for false accusations that were made” and by “cho[osing] to defendant these false accusations against Plaintiff[.]” [ECF No. 1 at 6]. Plaintiff claims that, due to the conduct of the named co-defendants, Plaintiff was deprived of his constitutionally protected results and has been damaged as a result. Specifically, he claims that he has suffered “suffered defamation, and slander because of the false accusations brought against him, ” “suffered embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and damage to his reputation, ” and “suffered many months of depression, psychological pain, and distress.” [ECF No. 1 at 6-7]. Plaintiff explains this “situation could have been really detrimental to the Plaintiff's reputation, as well as his person.” [ECF No. 1 at 7]. Plaintiff Young respectfully requests judgment in his favor, including appropriate declaratory or equitable relief required to prevent the continued violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, general damages for past, present, and future pain and suffering, and other damages in the excess of $1, 000, 000 (one million dollars), costs and fees associated with bringing this action, and any other award(s) that the Court deems just and proper. B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9 and 11][1]
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because Defendant are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, and further, the West Virginia Board of Governors (“WVBOG”) is not a person capable of liability within the purview of § 1983. Defendants also argue Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim must fail as a matter of law because Plaintiff fails to allege a denial of a life, liberty, or property interest. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's discrimination claims must also fail because they are conclusory and offer no factual allegations to support a reasonable inference of age or race discrimination. Defendants argue that, regarding the claim of age discrimination, the remedy sought, compensatory monetary damages, is unavailable under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Plaintiff has not first exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit as required under the Act. Defendants additionally argue, regarding the claim of race discrimination, that the proper defendant in a Title VI case is an entity rather than an individual and, thus, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Ryan. Defendants lastly argue that the False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C.§ 287, does not provide a private cause of action and, moreover, Defendants WVU BOG and Dr. Ryan are not an agency or official of the federal government. Accordingly, Defendants argue Plaintiff's final claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Defendants are ultimately requesting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted and Plaintiff's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial