Douglas v. Dabney S. Lancaster Community College

990 F.Supp. 447

Renee M. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. DABNEY S. LANCASTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Dr. Benjamin Terry King, Dr. Michael Scott, and Dr. Robert H. Day, Jr., Defendants.

No. CIV. A. 95-0352-R.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

July 1, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John Saul Edwards, Roanoke, VA, for plaintiff.

James S. Gilmore, III, Neil Anthony Gordon McPhie, Catherine Currin Hammond, Maureen Fay Riley Matsen, Office of Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Dabney S. Lancaster Community College, Dr. Michael Scott, Dr. Robert H. Day, Jr.

William Fain Rutherford, Jr., Todd A. Leeson, Flippin, Densmore, Morse, Rutherford & Jessee, Roanoke, VA, for Dr. Benjamin Terry King.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KISER, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Renee M. Douglas is a professor of criminal justice at Dabney S. Lancaster Community College ("DSLCC" or "the college"). The plaintiff has filed claims against all of the defendants alleging sexual discrimination and sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, state law sexual discrimination and sexual harassment, and wrongful interference with professional relations. Defendant King and Defendants DSLCC, Dr. Michael Scott, and Dr. Robert Day have filed separate motions for summary judgment.¹ The defendants assert there is no dispute of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of the plaintiff's claims.

The parties have fully briefed the issues involved and have presented oral argument. The motions are, therefore, ripe for disposition. For the reasons contained herein, I am of the opinion that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied in part as to King's individual liability under Title VII and Section 1983 for hostile environment sexual harassment and for disparate treatment under a sexual quid pro quo theory for the plaintiff's VWCC reprimand and as to DSLCC's liability under Title VII for King's hostile environment sexual harassment and disparate treatment under a sexual quid pro quo theory for the plaintiff's VWCC reprimand (Count 1 of the complaint) and granted in part as to all other claims under Count 1 and all other counts of the complaint.

I. FACTS

The plaintiff is a member of the DSLCC faculty and head of DSLCC's Administration of Justice program. Defendant King is dean of academics and instruction at the college. Defendant Scott is chairman of the arts and sciences division at DSLCC; Scott was plaintiff's direct supervisor from November 3, 1993, to July 1, 1996. Defendant Day was chairman of the business and technology division of DSLCC until from 1992 through June 30, 1994; Day was plaintiff's direct supervisor from June 1992 until November 3, 1993. Marge Carte is the former chairman of the business and technology division of DSLCC and was plaintiff's direct supervisor from 1988 until 1992. Dr. John F. Backels was the president of DSLCC until 1995; Dr. Richard Teaff assumed the presidency of DSLCC in 1995.

The relevant events surrounding the plaintiff's claims in this action are in the following timeline:

1988

• Plaintiff was hired as assistant professor at DSLCC. Plaintiff alleges that she was hired at a lower salary than her male counterparts, despite their lower amount of field experience and lesser education.

• Plaintiff alleges that King asked inappropriate questions about whether plaintiff planned to marry and have more children and whether plaintiff was seriously dating in the job interview. King required the plaintiff to live near DSLCC.

1989

• Plaintiff claims that King made sexual advances to her in 1988 and spring 1989 King called plaintiff, asking her out on dates; King propositioned plaintiff at the college.

1990

• A program of study approved by President Backels was part of the Virginia Community College System ("VCCS") professorial requirements. In May 1990, Marge Carte wrote to King, recommending plaintiff's program of study for approval. Plaintiff claims that King told her he would approve it and that plaintiff would be eligible for promotion to associate professor once she met the minimum years of teaching requirement in 1993, but King never approved plaintiff's program of study. King maintains that Backels refused to sign plaintiff's program of study because it was not in her teaching field. Plaintiff claims this refusal was not conveyed to her.

• Plaintiff maintains that King made comments about a relationship between her and fellow professor Jerry Dale in 1989-91 that allude to an affair (e.g., "you and Jerry doing the wild thing too long").

1991

• Plaintiff asserts that, in November 1991, King made an inappropriate comment about plaintiff's "good sex" with her then-fiance Michael Banks.

1992

• In the spring of 1992, plaintiff claims that she spoke directly with Backels about King's harassment.

• Plaintiff claims that, in a May 1992 phone call, King asked her if she would have an affair with him. King said he could make plaintiff's life miserable, if he wanted to, and that plaintiff and her career would be dirt. Police officer Robert Carpentieri was at plaintiff's home and heard the conversation over the speaker phone.

• During 1992 summer vacation, when plaintiff was not under contract with DSLCC, plaintiff alleges that Day repeatedly called her at home and insisted that she drive 2.5 hours to DSLCC to meet him.

• Plaintiff claims that, in December 1992, when she advised Day about her need for immediate surgery, Day gave her a hard time about upcoming exams and told her she should wait until May 1993 to have the surgery done.

• In December 1992, plaintiff contends that King asked whether her surgery was something feminine and King told her, "You can't sleep with me now."

• In December 1992, Scott made the comment regarding plaintiff's upcoming surgery that, "I hear we can play tennis with your problem."

1993

• Plaintiff claims that, while she was in the hospital in January 1993 for major surgery, Day repeatedly called her about work. After plaintiff's husband told Day not to call and not to visit, Day visited the plaintiff.

• Plaintiff was not promoted to associate professor in the spring of 1993; plaintiff alleges that King blocked the promotion.

• Plaintiff claims she spoke with Backels about King's harassment in the spring, in September, and in November.

• Plaintiff claims that Day would not let her take time off on the day her ex-husband died (August 23, 1993).

• In the spring and fall 1993, Paul Phillips, a student in plaintiff's class, harassed plaintiff through inappropriate comments and actions. In April 1993 and on a number of occasions in the fall of 1993, plaintiff complained orally and in writing to DSLCC to take disciplinary action against Phillips. It was not until October 1993 that Dr. Goralewicz, director of student services at DSLCC, indicated that he would establish a hearing on the matter. Phillips was expelled after a hearing on October 26 and 27, 1993.

• In October 1993, plaintiff alleges that King asked her how her sexual libido was.

• In October 1993, plaintiff alleges that, in an argument regarding the hiring of another instructor, Day cursed and abused her and called her a "bitch."

• From October 27 to November 2, 1993, the plaintiff was on sick leave from DSLCC due to stress.

• On November 3, 1993, Scott replaced Day as plaintiff's direct supervisor.

• In November 1993, DSLCC received an anonymous complaint that the plaintiff was teaching classes at Virginia Western Community College ("VWCC") while on sick leave. King asked Scott to investigate the complaint.

• In early November 1993, plaintiff claims that King commented that a dress she was wearing showed off her best features, implicitly referring to her breasts and buttocks. A student, Shane Wills, overheard the conversation.

• Plaintiff alleges that, after the Phillips hearing, Scott had her students do new evaluations of her, instead of using the ones already done. Scott claimed that the original evaluations could not be found, but he found them after the personnel evaluation was completed.

• On or about November 29, 1993, plaintiff claims that Scott called her at home after she severely injured her back and advised her that she had an hour to decide if she wanted her job after the first of the year.

• In a December 21, 1993, letter, Scott refused to recommend plaintiff for reappointment to the faculty for the following term, because of his belief that plaintiff was refusing to cooperate in the VWCC investigation. King concurred in Scott's decision.

• In December 1993, plaintiff filed her EEOC claim.

1994

• Around January 1994, plaintiff claims that King asked her, "Is your new husband meeting your needs at home?"

• In the winter of 1994, plaintiff alleges that King told her that things must be going well at home, "because you don't want to have anything to do with me." Plaintiff believes she may have told King he was "sick."

• In a January 28, 1994, letter, Scott informed King that, because of conflicting evidence over whether plaintiff taught at VWCC, Scott reversed his non-reappointment recommendation and, instead recommended that plaintiff be given a written reprimand for her failure to cooperate in the VWCC investigation. A letter of reprimand was subsequently placed in plaintiff's file. On April 7, 1994, the plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the reprimand.

• In a overall evaluation for 1993 written on February 7, 1994, Scott gave plaintiff only a "fair" mark. Scott cited the plaintiff's refusal to cooperate in the VWCC investigation as the reason plaintiff was not given a "good" mark. Plaintiff and Scott subsequently had a number of conversations regarding the evaluation; plaintiff later grieved the evaluation.

• The plaintiff was not promoted to associate professor because of her "fair evaluation." Plaintiff...