Blakney v. N.C. A&T State Univ. & Dr. David Wagner

SANDRA G. BLAKNEY, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY and DR. DAVID WAGNER, Defendants.

1:17CV874

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

March 20, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OSTEEN, JR., District Judge

Currently before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., among other claims. (See Doc. 7.) Defendants have filed a brief in support of their motion, (Doc. 8); Plaintiff has responded in opposition, (Doc. 14); and Defendants have replied, (Doc. 17). For the reasons that follow, this court finds that Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. To the extent that Plaintiff has asked this court for leave to amend her Complaint, that request will be denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts, construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, are as follows.

Defendant North Carolina A&T State University ("N.C. A&T") is part of the University of North Carolina state school system, a state agency. (See Verified Compl. ("Compl.") (Doc. 4) ¶ 2.)¹ Beginning in February 2014 and continuing through December 31, 2016, N.C A&T employed Plaintiff as a nurse in its student health center. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 4; see Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1 (Doc. 7-1).)² It is undisputed that Plaintiff turned forty yearsof age prior to beginning employment with N.C. A&T. (See Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶ 1.)

Beginning in August 2015, N.C. A&T employed Defendant David Wagner ("Defendant Wagner" or "Dr. Wagner") as the Physician Director of its student health center. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5; see Blakney Aff., Ex. 1 (Doc. 13-1) at 4.)³ Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Wagner is a citizen and resident of Guilford County, North Carolina. (Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶ 3).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wagner's position as Physician Director required him to evenly split his time betweenadministrative and clinical work. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant Wagner, however, allegedly delegated his clinical work to nurse practitioners. (See id. ¶¶ 10-12.) Clinical work included patient intake, to which Plaintiff often attended. (See id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) During Plaintiff's shift, she and one other colleague, Frances Cole (who is over seventy years old), were the only nurses attending to patient intake. (See id. ¶¶ 7-8.)

Defendant Wagner insisted that the patient-intake process take no longer than twenty minutes, a new requirement that he formally implemented in June 2016. (See id. ¶¶ 16, 20; Blakney Aff., Ex. 1 (Doc. 13-1) at 4.) Plaintiff took issue with this demand, asserting to Dr. Wagner at the time and in her Complaint now, that the twenty-minute intake window was not feasible given her other duties and because there were only two nurses performing intake. (See Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶¶ 18-21, 40.) Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Wagner "erroneously asserted" that only a check of the vital signs needed to be performed within twenty minutes but that the nurse practitioners "directed that Blakney assess the patient's vital signs, allergies, medications . . . among other tasks" within twenty minutes. (See id. ¶¶ 46-47.)

Before N.C. A&T hired Dr. Wagner, Plaintiff had never been disciplined at work. (Id. ¶ 14.) She alleges that Defendant Wagner caused her performance review to be downgraded in thespring of 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24.) Plaintiff's April 4, 2016 evaluation noted her work as "outstanding." (Id. ¶ 22.)⁴ Defendant Wagner allegedly stated at some point thereafter that Plaintiff's evaluation should be changed because "nobody is outstanding." (Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶ 23.) Plaintiff's next evaluation, on May 15, 2016, was allegedly "downgraded" at Defendant Wagner's direction to "very good," noting a need to "pay attention to detail." (See id. ¶ 24; Blakney Aff., Ex. 1 (Doc. 13-1) at 4.)⁵

Besides the new intake procedure, Plaintiff had additional difficulties with Defendant Wagner. Plaintiff alleges that, shortly after he started as Physician Director, Dr. Wagner made "comments of a sexual nature that caused [P]laintiff to be uncomfortable." (Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶ 5.) On one specific occasion, Plaintiff allegedly informed Defendant Wagner that he was using too much lubricant on a patient during a vaginal examination, to which Dr. Wagner responded by telling the patient that he was "going to use less lubricant; if you experience pain, it is Blakney's fault." (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.)

On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff and one of her supervisors met with N.C. A&T's Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, Marc Williams, to discuss Blakney's concerns about Dr. Wagner, "including his inappropriate sexual comments." (Id. ¶ 30.) On August 25, 2016, Defendant Wagner verbally warned Plaintiff about her alleged "failure to perform intake for all patients within a twenty-minute time window." (Id. ¶ 31.)

On September 9, 2016, Dr. Wagner issued a written warning threatening Plaintiff with dismissal due to "[fifteen] incidents of patient intake taking longer than twenty minutes." (Id. ¶ 32; Pl.'s Br. (Doc. 14) at 4 n.2.) Plaintiff alleges that the September 9th written warning cost her a raise, was forwarded to the human resources department, and might have become part of her official personnel file. (Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶¶ 34, 36.)⁶ The September 9th warning demanded "a 100% improvement in intake within 60 days." (Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶ 37.) When Plaintiff received that warning, Dr. Wagner verbally warned Plaintiff about her patient-intake shortcomings as well. (Id. ¶ 38.) Dr. Wagner also told Plaintiff that she should have raised her concerns with him instead of Assistant Dean Williams. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffresponded that completing one-hundred percent of patient intakes within twenty minutes was not possible. (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.) Dr. Wagner told her that the "higher-ups" were complaining about the intake times. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff informed him that she would speak with the higher-ups about it, and Dr. Wagner allegedly responded in a threatening tone: "you've already been up there, haven't you." (Id. ¶¶ 44-45.)

Plaintiff alleges that she was not the only nurse to receive a written warning on September 9th for a failure to check in one-hundred percent of patients within twenty minutes. (Id. ¶ 33.) She alleges, however, that a lone male nurse did not receive such warning. (See id.) Those who did, including Ms. Cole, allegedly spoke with N.C. A&T's human resources department regarding Dr. Wagner's intake policy. (See id. ¶¶ 48-49.) Plaintiff asserts that human resources responded by asking Ms. Cole when she planned on retiring, (id. ¶ 50), and apparently noted that one of the younger nurses was excelling at patient intake, (id. ¶¶ 51-52).

Plaintiff spoke to Assistant Dean Williams again on September 15, 2016. (Blakney Aff., Ex. 1 (Doc. 13-1) at 9.) Assistant Dean Williams informed Plaintiff that he had told Defendant Wagner that Plaintiff had come to see him (Williams). (Id.) Williams also asked Plaintiff to take her complaintsdirectly to Defendant Wagner in the future. (Id.) Plaintiff told Williams that she had spoken directly with Defendant Wagner, but she would not continue to do so because of his "disrespectful, arrogant attitude." (Id.)⁷

In mid-September 2016, sometime after the September 9th warning, Plaintiff filed a formal grievance with N.C. A&T "regarding her issues with Wagner." (See Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶ 53.) On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff received a follow-up letter to the September 9th warning, informing her that she was performing at least ninety-percent of her intakes within the twenty-minute window. (Id. ¶ 54.)

On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff sent a follow-up email about her formal grievance. (Id. ¶ 55.) Someone responded on October 27, 2016, stating that an investigative report would be completed by October 28, 2016. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiff alleges that no response was communicated to her on October 28th. (Id. ¶ 57.) Instead, she claims that she received a response at some unalleged time. (Id. ¶ 63.) It was dated November 7, 2016 and delivered to an employee mailbox that Plaintiff rarely used and not otherwise transmitted to her. (Id. ¶¶ 63, 65.) N.C. A&Tindicated in the review that Dr. Wagner's behavior towards Plaintiff was unacceptable and could create a hostile work environment if it continued. (See id. ¶ 64.)

On or around November 10, 2016, Plaintiff noticed her resignation, effective December 31, 2016. (Id. ¶ 62; Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1 (Doc. 7-1).) She alleges that she resigned because she feared termination, which allegedly would have caused her to lose her retirement benefits. (Compl. (Doc. 4) ¶¶ 58, 62.) Plaintiff asserts that, had she been aware of the November 7th response by the time she resigned, "she may have decided" not to. (Id. ¶ 70.) Plaintiff claims that she was replaced by a younger and less-qualified certified medical assistant. (Id. ¶¶ 66-67.) She vaguely alleges that at least one of her supervisors "advised" that Defendant Wagner intended to replace the older nurses with younger ones. (Id. ¶ 69.)

Plaintiff alleges generally that Defendant Wagner, as an agent of Defendant N.C. A&T, and whose alleged misconduct N.C. A&T ratified, acted "intentionally, with malice, spi[t]e and ill will towards plaintiff in retaliation for her protected activity of approaching Dean Williams." (Id. ¶¶ 59-61.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered a loss in income, the loss of her health insurance through N.C. A&T, and a reduction in Social Security and retirement benefits. (Id. ¶ 71.)

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. (Blakney Aff. (Doc. 13-1) ¶ 3; Ex. 1 (Doc. 13-1) at 4.) The EEOC charge did not identify Dr. Wagner by name but described a "new Student Health Center Director," (see Ex. 1 to Blakney Aff. (Doc. 13-1) at 4), and an EEO intake form from the North Carolina Office of State...