Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati

ANDREA GOLDBLUM, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-398

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Cincinnati

March 28, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MATTHEW W. McFARLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This case is before the Court on Defendant University of Cincinnati's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 65). The plaintiff, Andrea Goldblum, was formerly employed by the University as a Title IX coordinator. The only surviving claim is for retaliation under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

The facts backgrounding this case involve the agonizing subject of sexual assault. The narrow legal issue this Court must determine, however, is whether there is evidence that the University had an unlawful, discriminatory motive when it asked Goldblum to resign following a controversy at the school. Upon review, the Court finds no evidence that the University's reasons for firing Goldblum were a pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, the Court grants the University's motion for summary judgment.

FACTS

A. Factual Background

In June 2018, Andrea Goldblum was hired as the University's Executive Director of Gender Equity and Inclusion ("Title IX Coordinator"). (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3427, ¶ 9.) In that role, she was responsible for ensuring that the University's policies and practices complied with Title IX and other laws. (Ex. B Goldblum Dep., Doc. 54-1, Pg. ID 950.) This included assigning reported Title IX incidents to a University Title IX staff member for investigation. (Doc 73-1, Pg. ID 3249, ¶ 12.) Dr. Bleuzette Marshall, the University's Vice President for Equity, Inclusion, and Community Impact, was Goldblum's supervisor. (Goldblum Decl., Doc. 69-1, Pg. ID 2698, ¶ 2; Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3251, ¶ 16.)

The College of Arts and Sciences (the "College") gives "triumph cords" to students who have overcome adverse circumstances before reaching graduation. To receive a triumph cord, a faculty or staff member from the College nominates a student to the College administration. There is no vetting or evaluation process. Although the triumph cord is a private recognition, the College asks triumph cord recipients if they would like to share their story to be featured in an article. From the December 2018 graduating class, six students who received a triumph cord agreed to be in the article. On January 23, 2019, the College published the article on its Facebook page. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3252 ¶¶ 20-25; Holstrom Dep., Doc. 57, Pg. ID 1784-85.)

The article received hundreds of comments. (Ex. 14 Marshall Dep., Doc. 55-1, Pg. ID 1422-39.) Most of the comments focused on one student in particular (the "Student"). He was a classified sex offender who had attended six colleges over five and a half years. One of those colleges was Bowling Green State University, from which he had been suspended for two years after being found guilty of gross sexual imposition . (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3252-54, ¶¶ 27, 33; Doc. 66-1, Pg. ID 2485; Doc. 75, Pg. ID 3355-56.) Many commenters were "venting and sharing their frustrations" and "upset about [the Student] being recognized/' (Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1212.) The College's Senior Assistant Dean, Lisa Holstrom, learned about the Facebook comments on February 6, 2019. She told her supervisor, the Dean of the College, Ken Petren, and the University's Executive Director of Public Relations, M.B. Reilly. Reilly recommended against deleting the article on the basis that deletion would be inconsistent with journalistic standards, but advised that all inquiries be forwarded to her. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3256, ¶¶ 44, 45, 47.)

On February 8, 2019, Goldblum became aware of the Facebook postings about the Student's history. She asked Reilly to look at them. On February 11, Goldblum spoke with Reilly about the University's Title IX, student conduct, and admissions processes. (Id. at ¶¶ 48, 49, 55.) Dr. Marshall first learned of the matter later that evening after Goldblum called her. (Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1212-13.)

By the next morning, February 12, Goldblum and Dr. Marshall were heavily invested in addressing the controversy over the Student and the article featuring him. Goldblum told Reilly she wanted to contact the University's student newspaper about the incident. Reilly told Goldblum to contact Dr. Marshall first. Goldblum and Dr. Marshall spoke through email and text messages throughout that day. During their first phone call that day, Goldblum expressed to Dr. Marshall the need for sending a letter to the student newspaper. Dr. Marshall asked her to email her a copy of the letter Goldblum proposed to send. Goldblum emailed Dr. Marshall her proposed letter around noon. Dr. Marshall told Goldblum not to send anything to the student newspaper until Dr. Marshall finished speaking with her colleagues. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3260-62, ¶¶ 68-70, 72-74, 77.)

Dr. Marshall learned later that day that Dean Petren planned to respond to the article controversy. She relayed this information to Goldblum. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3262, ¶¶ 78-80.) Dr. Marshall also spoke with Dr. Neville Pinto, the President of the University. They discussed what the University response would be. She told the President that Goldblum wanted to send a letter to the student newspaper. But the President told her that Dean Petren would be addressing the situation. (Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1254-56.)

Goldblum had been told that "people were determining what the University's response would be," but she felt that Dr. Marshall was engaging in "delay tactics." (Goldblum Dep., Doc. 54, Pg. ID 803.) That afternoon, she expressed to Dr. Marshall her desire to receive an answer about her proposed letter by 5:00 P.M. (Goldblum Dep., Doc. 54, Pg. ID 808-09; Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1256.) Dr. Marshall told her she would "get back to her either way, and to wait." (Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1257.)

At 4:36 P.M., Goldblum emailed a draft of her letter to Reilly. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3264, ¶ 85.) It read as follows:

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to the feedback and concerns expressed by members of our community regarding the award to and article about [the Student]. I understand that members of our community are being impacted by this situation and are hurting. Please be assured that 1 hear you. We are looking into various processes at work so that we can improve them. In the meantime, we have resources on campus for your support. . . . We must do better; we will do better, continuing to work to make the environment safe and equitable. Please don't give up on us, as we are not giving up on you. We are here and we hear you.

(Doc. 75, Pg. ID 3403-04.) Reilly did not review the letter. Instead, she forwarded it to Dr. Marshall, assuming Dr. Marshall had given Goldblum permission to send the letter. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3261, If 86; Doc. 55-1, Pg. ID 1456-57.) At 4:49 P.M., Dean Petren emailed Reilly and others, telling them he would be modifying the online article and posting an editorial note about the reasons for the modification. At 5:08 P.M., Goldblum texted Dr. Marshall: "I am going to send in the letter to the editor. If there are any repercussions, I will accept them. I want to be done and go home." (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3264, ¶¶ 87, 88; Doc. 55-1, Pg. ID 1487, 1561.) Dr. Marshall responded: "I'm on a call regarding the letter. Please do not send." (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3264, ¶ 89.) At 5:26 PM, Goldblum sent the letter to the University's student newspaper. (Id. at ¶ 90.)

After Dr. Marshall's phone call, she called Goldblum and said, "Please tell me you didn't send the letter." (Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1251.) Goldblum told her she did send the letter, that she did not regret it, and she would deal with the consequences. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3264, % 91.) Dr. Marshall expressed her disappointment and explained: "You can't get ahead of our colleagues. There was already a process in place. We can't insert ourselves into the system or into a process." (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3264, ¶ 91.)

The next morning, February 13, Goldblum emailed the student newspaper again. She attached a revised but substantially similar version of the letter from the day before. She told them to disregard the prior day's letter and use the attached one instead. (Id. at ¶ 98; Doc. 55-1, Pg. ID 1458.) Also that day, Dr. Marshall began discussing with Human Resources Goldblum's decision to send the letter to the student newspaper despite being told not to. A couple days later, she spoke with the University's Chief HR Officer about taking employment action against Goldblum. And, about a week after that, she met with HR to discuss discipline options. She also met with Goldblum. Goldblum reiterated that the University "missed an opportunity" and should have responded differently to the Facebook comments. Dr. Marshall responded that they had to work as a team and that she was still dealing with the matter. (Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3266, ¶¶ 108, 109.)

By February 27, Dr. Marshall had decided that she was going to give Goldblum the chance to resign. If Goldblum refused to resign, she would be dismissed. (Marshall Dep., Doc. 55, Pg. ID 1291-92.) She based this decision largely on her conclusion that Goldblum had violated sections 3(c) and 3(ff) of the University's Human Resource Conduct Policy, 15.02, to which all University employees are subject. (Id. at Pg. ID 1167-68; Doc. 73-1, Pg. ID 3246, ¶ 4.)

Section 2 of the conduct policy provides: "For conduct and rule violations disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination may occur." (Doc. 55-1, Pg. ID 1351.) Section 3 identifies several violations. Section 3(c) specifies insubordination as one such violation, defining "insubordination" as ...