RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Stephanie Yvonne Brown ("plaintiff" or "Brown") brings this action against the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law ("DCSL"), as well as the University of the District of Columbia's Board of Trustees (the "Board") and President Allen L. Sessoms ("President Sessoms") (collectively, "defendants"), seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful termination, race and gender discrimination, negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record therein, the defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Over the past twenty-five years, plaintiff has held a variety of administrative and academic positions at the University of the District of Columbia ("UDC"), the most recent of which was an associate professorship of law at DCSL. Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 6. On January 5, 2009, plaintiff applied for tenure and promotion to a full professorship position at the law school. Id. ¶ 14.
DCSL's Faculty Evaluation and Retention Committee ("FERC") met on May 14, 2009 to discuss plaintiff's application. Id. Voting in favor of recommending tenure, FERC subsequently forwarded its approval to Katherine S. Broderick, Dean of DCSL, a few days later. Id. Dean Broderick was reluctant, at first, to endorse FERC's tenure recommendation due to plaintiff's lack of scholarship, and even suggested that FERC withdraw plaintiff's tenure application from consideration. Id. ¶¶ 17, 20. When FERC updated the application to include a newly-announced publication of one of plaintiff's articles, however, Dean Broderick changed her mind, endorsed FERC's tenure recommendation, and transmitted it to then Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Graeme Baxter ("Provost Baxter") on December 8, 2009. Id. ¶¶ 22-24.
Eighteen months later, on June 6, 2011, Provost Baxter informed plaintiff, in writing, that her tenure application had been rejected, and that the 2011-2012 academic year would be her last as a member of DCSL's law faculty. Id. ¶ 27; Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs. Mot."), Ex. 11, ECF No. 9. Although Provost Baxter later informed plaintiff, in writing, that she had referred the tenure matter to UDC President Allen Sessoms for his review, President Sessoms agreed with Provost Baxter's decision to deny plaintiff tenure. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 30. Accordingly, in October 2011, President Sessoms ratified Provost Baxter's denial of tenure, refused to forward plaintiff's application to the Board for its consideration,
On May 2, 2012, plaintiff received a letter from Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Ken Bain, informing her that, consistent with Provost Baxter's June 2011 letter, plaintiff's employment at DCSL would officially conclude at the end of the 2011-2012 academic year, specifically on May 15, 2012. Id. ¶ 55; Pl.'s Mot. for PI ("Pl.'s PI Mot."), Ex. 6, ECF Nos. 1-3, 2. Seven days later, on May 9, 2012, plaintiff brought an action against defendants in the D.C. Superior Court, requesting, among other things, a TRO or preliminary injunction to thwart her dismissal, as well as to enable the Board to consider her tenure and promotion application. See Notice of Removal ("Removal Not."), ECF No. 1; Pl.'s Mot. for TRO ("Pl.'s TRO Mot."), ECF Nos. 1-2, 2; Pl.'s PI Mot. On May 17, 2012, defendants removed the action to this federal court, see Removal Not. at 1, and on May 21, 2012, by agreement of the parties, defendant District of Columbia was voluntarily dismissed from the case, see Stip. of Dismissal, ECF No. 3, with prejudice.
At plaintiff's request, this Court converted plaintiff's motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction into one seeking only a preliminary injunction, and set a date to hear oral argument for a preliminary injunction. See Civ. Case No. 12-799, Minute Entry, May 22, 2012. After briefing was completed and oral argument was held, this Court found that plaintiff had failed to establish the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm to warrant a preliminary injunction and denied plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. See Civ. Case No. 12-799, Minute Entry, June 12, 2012; Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 888 F.Supp.2d 28, 34 (D.D.C.2012).
Defendants moved to dismiss this action on June 5, 2012. See Defs.' Mot. For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is granted.
The defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In evaluating the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court must "treat the complaint's factual allegations as true" and "grant plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged." Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C.Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rather, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]he court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint." Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994). Indeed, where the court cannot infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct from the facts, "the complaint has alleged — but it has not shown — that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937
Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that the defendants are liable for a variety of torts, contract, and civil rights violations. See generally Am. Compl. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with defendants DCSL, the Board, and President Sessoms that plaintiff's claims against President Sessoms, in his individual and official capacity, should be dismissed and plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff names Allen L. Sessoms, UDC President, as a defendant in this case, in both his official and individual capacities. See Am. Compl. ¶ 3. Despite a lack of clarity in the amended complaint as to which claims the plaintiff is asserting against which defendant, the Court presumes that plaintiff intends to bring claims of race and gender discrimination under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), negligent infliction of emotional distress and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against all defendants, including President Sessoms. See id. ¶¶ 73-84, 92-94.
Defendants argue that plaintiff's suit against President Sessoms in his official capacity is redundant of her suit against the Board. See Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mem.") at 15, ECF No. 9. An official capacity suit "generally represent[s] only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent." Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Because "[i]t is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity," an official capacity suit is, "in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against President Sessoms in his official capacity will be treated as claims against the Board.
In addition, defendants contend that plaintiff's individual capacity claims against President Sessoms should be dismissed "because he was acting within the scope of his authority and therefore has qualified immunity." See Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Reply") at 5-6, ECF No. 16. Due to plaintiff's failure, in her opposition, to counter any of the defendants' assertions regarding plaintiff's individual capacity claims against President Sessoms, plaintiff concedes the defendants' arguments.
Plaintiff alleges in Count 1 of her amended complaint that by allowing Provost Baxter and President Sessoms "to impede [p]laintiff's tenure review and promotion process and ultimately preclude [the] Board['s] ... consideration of [p]laintiff's tenure application," defendants DCSL and the Board "violated the [Faculty] Handbook[]," thereby "breach[ing] [p]laintiff's contractual rights." Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59-62. In addition, plaintiff contends that Dean Broderick failed to "advise[] the Board and President Sessoms of the state of the law and that any final consideration by the Provost and/or the President of [p]laintiff's tenure and promotion application was prohibited," id. ¶ 61, and that defendants DCSL and the Board's alleged breach caused her to "suffer[] considerable economic harm ... including loss [of] wages, loss [of] promotion, back and front pay, and other benefits." Id. ¶ 63. Defendants DCSL and the Board argue that plaintiff's claim for breach of contract should be dismissed because she fails to allege facts establishing the necessary elements of a binding, enforceable agreement between the parties, and because there is no breach. See Defs.' Mem. at 18-24. I agree.
To state a claim for breach of contract, plaintiff must allege: "(1) a valid contract between the parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and (4) damages caused by breach." Ihebereme v. Capital One, N.A., 730 F.Supp.2d 40, 47 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181, 187 (D.C.2009)). Under District of Columbia law, a valid and enforceable contract exists where there is "both (1) agreement as to all material terms, and (2) intention of the parties to be bound." Kramer Assocs., Inc. v. Ikam, Ltd., 888 A.2d 247, 251 (D.C. 2005) (quoting Georgetown Entm't Corp. v. Dist. of Columbia, 496 A.2d 587, 590 (D.C. 1985)) (alteration in original). The party claiming the existence of an enforceable contract bears the burden of demonstrating that the parties entered into one. Ponder v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 666 F.Supp.2d 45, 48 (D.D.C.2009). "In the absence of a valid agreement, a breach of contract claim cannot be sustained." Cambridge Holdings Grp., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 357 F.Supp.2d 89, 94 (D.D.C.2004) (citation omitted); Strauss v. NewMarket Global Consulting Grp., LLC, 5 A.3d 1027, 1033 n. 3 (D.C.2010) ("A court cannot enforce a contract unless it can determine what it is."). Plaintiff utterly fails to do so here.
While plaintiff contends that the Faculty Handbook is a "binding contract between law faculty members and the law school" that obligates the Board — not the President — to make the final decision with regard to tenure applications, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10-12, 36, 59-62, the amended complaint fails to allege the facts necessary
Moreover, even if the Court were to find that the Faculty Handbook is a valid contract between the plaintiff and DCSL, and that the Faculty Handbook incorporates the Merger Agreement, as plaintiff alleges, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 60, 62, she nonetheless fails to state a claim for breach of contract because she received the very promotion and tenure review process outlined in the Faculty Handbook and the Merger Agreement. Indeed, when the Faculty Handbook's subsection on the promotion and/or tenure application process
In Count II, plaintiff alleges that defendants DCSL and the Board breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by "intentionally imped[ing] and delay[ing] consideration of [p]laintiff's applications for tenure and full professorship," "allow[ing]... President [Sessoms] to make a final tenure decision in violation of applicable law," "deliberately depriv[ing] [p]laintiff of timely, objective and unbiased consideration for tenure and promotion," and "depriv[ing] [the] Board of its right to dutifully consider [p]laintiff's application for tenure and full professorship." Am. Compl. ¶¶ 65-66. Consequently, plaintiff contends that she has suffered an undetermined amount of "economic damages." Id. ¶ 67. I disagree.
Under District of Columbia law, "all contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, which means that `neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.'" Paul v. Howard Univ., 754 A.2d 297, 310 (D.C.2000) (citation omitted); see also Messina v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 998 F.2d 2, 4-5 (D.C.Cir.1993). A breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing must necessarily arise, however, out of the performance or enforcement of a contract. C & E Servs., Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 601 F.Supp.2d 262, 275 (D.D.C.2009).
Because plaintiff has failed to plead facts establishing a valid contractual agreement between the parties that could give rise to a breach of good faith and fair dealing, see supra pages 110-13, the Court finds that the plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing against defendants.
Plaintiff claims in Count III of her amended complaint that defendants DCSL and the Board "illegally terminated [her] in violation of the Merger Agreement, Faculty Handbook and D.C. law," resulting in "significant emotional and mental distress and economic losses" to her. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 68-72.
As defendants point out, however, Count III mostly regurgitates plaintiff's breach of contract claims — that she was denied tenure and ultimately terminated in violation of the Faculty Handbook, which incorporates the Merger Agreement. See id. ¶¶ 59-63. Because plaintiff cannot recast her "breach" claims as a wrongful termination claim, especially where she has not shown that her breach of contract claims are distinguishable from her wrongful termination claim, the Court dismisses Count
With regard to plaintiff's allegation of wrongful discharge under District of Columbia law, specifically Section 1423 of District of Columbia Municipal Regulations ("D.C. Mun. Regs.") 8-A, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 69, this claim also fails. "It is well-settled District of Columbia law that an employment contract, absent evidence to the contrary, is terminable at the will of either party." Sorrells v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros., Miller & Rhoads, Inc., 565 A.2d 285, 289 (D.C.1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, courts in the District of Columbia have created several public policy exceptions to the rule where the employee's discharge offends some "mandate of public policy" that is "firmly anchored in either the Constitution or in a statute or regulation which clearly reflects the particular public policy being relied upon and ... [that policy] arise[s] from a statute or regulation that does not provide its own remedy." Carson v. Sim, 778 F.Supp.2d 85, 97 (D.D.C.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). These narrow exceptions include situations "where an employee suffers an adverse action for refusing to break the law or for following the law to the detriment of her employer." Chisholm v. Dist. of Columbia, 666 F.Supp.2d 96, 117 (D.D.C.2009).
The plaintiff here was not anything other than an at-will employee of DCSL, and she does not allege otherwise. And although plaintiff claims that defendants DCSL and the Board wrongfully discharged her, in violation of D.C. Mun. Regs. 8-A § 1423, which "states that tenure recommendations shall be forwarded only to the Dean," Am. Compl. ¶ 13, plaintiff mischaracterizes the text of the provision
In Count IV, plaintiff alleges that she was the victim of race and sex discrimination,
In addressing employment discrimination claims under the DCHRA, courts are guided by case law regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. See Burt v. Nat'l Republican Club of Capitol Hill, 828 F.Supp.2d 115, 122 (D.D.C.2011). The DCHRA, like Title VII, prohibits certain discriminatory practices, making it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual; or otherwise to discriminate against any individual, with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" based on an individual's "race, color, religion, national origin, sex [or] age." D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(a)(1).
Plaintiff fails to state a discrimination claim under the DCHRA because she has not alleged facts that could give rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of race or gender. To establish a prima facie case for discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of discrimination, that is, an inference that her employer took the action because of her membership in the protected class. See Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 850 (D.C.Cir.2006); George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 412 (D.C.Cir. 2005); Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999).
Unfortunately for the plaintiff, her amended complaint fails to allege facts that plausibly suggest the necessary connection between the adverse employment action at issue, the denial of promotion and tenure, and her membership in a protected class, as an African-American female. Certainly, plaintiff pleads her own race and gender, and alleges that, as a result of her status, she was refused promotion and tenure. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50-54, 73-77. However, plaintiff alleges no set of facts, beyond threadbare and conclusory assertions, from which a reasonable person could infer how her gender or race caused her tenure rejection, as opposed to any other, non-discriminatory basis, leaving the Court to infer that the act was discriminatory simply based on the fact that she is a woman, or that she is African-American, or both. This Court is not required to accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint. See Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276. Further, this discriminatory inference is especially weak given the fact that the two people who allegedly considered plaintiff's tenure application unlawfully are either African-American (President Sessoms) or a woman (Provost Baxter). See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 27, 29-30; Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n") at 20-21, ECF No. 13.
In addition, plaintiff pleads that she was subject to a different set of tenure criteria from Professor William G. McLain, a white
Alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, plaintiff claims in Count V of her amended complaint that defendants DCSL and the Board "denied [her] the same right to make and enjoy her employment contract and the benefits thereof as enjoyed by white employees, including equal and unbiased consideration of tenure and full professorship" in violation of "the [E]qual [P]rotection [C]lause of the 14th Amendment as pronounced in 42 U.S.C. [§] 1981." Am. Compl. ¶ 79. Furthermore, plaintiff contends that Provost Baxter and President Sessoms "acted in violation of the law and ... [DCSL's] antidiscrimination policies and procedures, thereby establishing an illegal policy and custom by its failure to enforce its anti-discrimination policies and laws." Id. ¶ 80.
A cause of action under Section 1981 may be brought when a plaintiff has suffered an injury flowing from the racially-motivated breach of his contractual relationship with another party. See Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 480, 126 S.Ct. 1246, 163 L.Ed.2d 1069 (2006); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (courts evaluating Section 1981 claims of employer discrimination must assess whether employer intentionally discriminated against plaintiff). In addressing race discrimination claims under Section 1981, courts look for guidance to the jurisprudence surrounding Title VII. See Burt, 828 F.Supp.2d at 122.
The analysis under Count V, plaintiff's Section 1981 claim, is largely duplicative of the Court's undertaking on plaintiff's DCHRA claim. Essentially, the plaintiff contends that defendants violated both Section 1981 and the DCHRA by allowing the President and Provost to consider and make final decisions upon her promotion and tenure application, while also holding plaintiff's application to a different standard than a white professor due to her race. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 73-84.
Accordingly, like her DCHRA claim, plaintiff's claim for discrimination under Section 1981 also fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted. Aside from broad, unsupported allegations that her race played a deciding role in defendants' promotion and tenure decisions, plaintiff has pled no set of facts that could allow this Court to make the inference that plaintiff's race was a motivating factor in DCSL or the Board's decision to deny
Finally, in Count VI of the amended complaint, plaintiff claims that defendants DCSL and the Board are liable for "negligent supervision" due to their failure to "properly monitor the [DCSL] tenure review process," "supervise and monitor its President and then ... Provost to ensure that they acted in accordance with [UDC's] stated anti-discrimination [and tenure] policies and procedures," and "monitor [DCSL's] tenure practices to ensure that [those practices] complied with its [Faculty] Handbook and the Merger Agreement, subject to applicable D.C. Municipal Regulatons [sic]." Am. Compl. ¶¶ 85-90.
Plaintiff's negligent supervision claim is thus premised on the fact that defendants DCSL and the Board were obligated to ensure that neither the President nor the Provost rendered any faculty tenure decisions for DCSL, especially final decisions. See id. ¶¶ 85-90. Plaintiff, however, fails to point to any particularized legal duty or requisite standard of care that the defendants allegedly breached by allowing the President or Provost to make such tenure decisions. Plaintiff has thus failed to adequately plead a claim for negligent supervision and Count VI is dismissed.
Thus, for all of the above reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate Order will issue with this Memorandum Opinion.
Defs.' Mot., Ex. 9 at 14-15.
Defs.' Mot, Ex. 1 at 8.
