Hollis v. Morgan State Univ.

1

LEAH P. HOLLIS, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-3555-LKG

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY, United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this employment discrimination matter, Plaintiff, Dr. Leah P Hollis, asserts federal and state law claims for sex discrimination, wage discrimination, leave discrimination and retaliation, related to her employment with Morgan State University (the “University”), against the University and Defendants Gloria Gibson, Glenda Prime Carolyn Anderson, Myrtle Dorsey, David Wilson and Lesia Crumpton-Young (the “Individual Defendants”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”), Md. Code Ann., State Gov't. §§ 20-606 and 20-607; the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (“MEPEWA”), Md. Code, Lab & Empl. § 3-304; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. § 1681; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. ECF No. 86. Plaintiff has also moved for summary judgment on her wage discrimination claims, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. ECF No. 95. These motions are fully briefed. ECF Nos. 101, 105. No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions.

See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons that follow, the Court: (1) GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) DENIES Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment; and (3) DISMISSES the amended complaint.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[2]

A. Factual Background

In this employment discrimination matter, Plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims for sex discrimination, wage discrimination, leave discrimination and retaliation against the Defendants, pursuant to Title VII, the MFEPA, the Equal Pay Act, the MEPEWA, Title IX, Section 1983, and the FMLA. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts the following 10 claims in the amended complaint: (1) Title VII-Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sex (Count I); (2) MFEPA-Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sex (Count II); (3) Equal Pay Act-Pay Discrimination on the Basis of Sex (Count III); (4) MEPEWA-Pay Discrimination on the Basis of Sex (Count IV); (5) Title VII-Retaliation (Count V); (6) MFEPA-Retaliation (Count VI); (7) Title IX-Employment Discrimination and Retaliation on the Basis of Sex (Count VII); (8) Section 1983-14th Amendment Equal Protection (Count VII); (9) MFEPA-Discriminatory Compensation Practices (Count IX); and (10) FMLA Interference and Retaliation (Count X). ECF No. 43-1. As relief, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, back pay, front pay, appointment to a tenured Full Professor position at the University, certain injunctive relief and to recover attorney's fees and costs from the Defendants. Id. at 44-45.

The Parties

Plaintiff, Dr. Leah P. Hollis, is a Black female professional educator, who has worked in the field of college student education for more than two decades. Plaintiff was formerly employed by the University as a professor and she resides in Pennsylvania. Id. ¶¶ 1, 9; ECF No. 101 at 4, n.1.

Defendant Morgan State University is a public urban research university located in Baltimore, Maryland. ECF No. 43-1 at ¶ 10. The University is a historically Black college and university (“HBCU”) and doctoral research institution. Id. The University is an “employer” under Title VII, the EPA, Title IX, the FMLA and Maryland state law. Id. ¶ 11.

Defendant Gloria Gibson is a resident of Illinois. Id. ¶ 12. At all times relevant to this matter, Dr. Gibson was the University's Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs. Id. Dr. Gibson resides in Illinois. Id.

Defendant Glenda Prime is a resident of Maryland. Id. ¶ 13. At all times relevant to this matter, Dr. Prime was the Department Chair of the University's Department of Advanced Studies, Leadership and Policy (the “Department”), and later Dean of the University's School of Education and Urban Studies (“SEUS”). Id.

Defendant Carolyn Anderson is a resident of Maryland. Id. ¶ 14. At all times relevant to this matter, Dr. Anderson was the Program Director of the University's Community College Leadership Program (the “CCLP”) in the Department, and later the interim chair of the Department. Id.

Defendant Myrtle Dorsey is a resident of Maryland. Id. ¶ 15. At all times relevant to this case, Dr. Dorsey was the Program Director of the CCLP. Id.

Defendant David Wilson is a resident of Maryland. Id. ¶ 16. At all times relevant to this case, Dr. Wilson was the President of the University. Id.

Defendant Lesia Crumpton-Young was a resident of Maryland at all relevant times to this case. Id. ¶ 17. At all times relevant in this case, Dr. Crumpton-Young was the Provost of the University. Id.

Plaintiff Is Hired By The University

Plaintiff earned her Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree from Boston University in 1998. ECF No. 86-15 (Def. Ex. 13); ECF No. 86-9 (Def. Ex. 7, Hollis Tr.) at 5 (15:7-16:1). Prior to her employment with the University, Plaintiff served in a variety of administrative and nontenured positions at various institutions. ECF No. 86-15 (Def. Ex. 13).

In January 2014, the University sought applicants with specialized experience “in community college or higher education administration” to fill a position in the Department's CCLP. ECF No. 86-16 (Def. Ex. 14); ECF No. 86-17 (Def. Ex. 15, Prime Tr. 1) at 7 (36:2137:12). And so, Plaintiff applied for this position and Dr. Prime recommended that the University hire Plaintiff. ECF No. 86-9 (Def. Ex. 7, Hollis Tr.) at 23 (85:8-11); ECF No. 86-116 (Def. Ex. 114) at 9, ¶ 25; ECF No. 86-21 (Def. Ex. 19).

On February 20, 2014, the University offered Plaintiff a tenure-track Assistant Professor position in the Department, which is housed in the SEUS. ECF No. 86-22 (Def. Ex. 20). And so, Plaintiff accepted a three-year contract as an Assistant Professor in the Department's CCLP. ECF No. 86-22 (Def. Ex. 20); ECF No. 86-9 (Def. Ex. 7, Hollis Tr.) at 19 (71:22-72:7).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff's starting salary at the University was $60,000. ECF No. 86-22 (Def. Ex. 20). In this regard, the Defendants acknowledge that this salary was at the bottom of the starting salary range for Assistant Professors in the CCLP at the time. ECF No. 86-7 (Def. Ex. 5, Prime Tr. 2) at 4-5 (17:6-18:17). Defendants allege, however, that Dr. Prime recommended a lower starting salary for Plaintiff, because of Plaintiff's lack of prior community college-focused experience, specialization, or research, and due to concerns expressed by members of the University's search committee about the quality of the venues in which Plaintiff had published.^[3] ECF No. 86-1 at 10-11 (citing ECF No. 86-7 (Def. Ex. 5, Prime Tr. 2) at 4-5, 6 (17:19-18:17, 23:19-24:11)).

Plaintiff's 2016 Tenure Application

In August 2016, Plaintiff submitted an application for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor (the “2016 Tenure Application”). ECF No. 98-11 (Pl. Ex. 26); ECF No 86-9 (Def. Ex. 7, Hollis Tr.) at 24 (91:18-92:4). And so, Dr Prime convened a three-member departmental review committee to review Plaintiff's application, which was comprised of the following professors: Whitney Johnson, Benjamin Welsh, and Robin Spaid. ECF No. 88-2 (Def. Ex. 25); ECF No. 88-3 (Def. Ex. 26); ECF No. 88-4 (Def. Ex. 27); ECF No. 88-5 (Def. Ex. 28); ECF No. 88-6 (Def. Ex. 29) at 2-3, ¶¶ 3-4; ECF No. 86-13 (Def. Ex. 11) at 1, ¶ 2. Dr. Welsh and Dr. Spaid voted in favor of awarding Plaintiff tenure and promotion. ECF No. 88-4 (Def. Ex. 27); ECF No. 88-5 (Def. Ex. 28); ECF No. 88-6 (Def. Ex. 29) at 2-3, ¶¶ 3-4. But Dr. Johnson voted against recommending Plaintiff for promotion and tenure, because she was concerned that, of the books published by Plaintiff since her hire, one book was self-published by Plaintiff's consulting company and the other was a book for which Plaintiff was the editor and sole author of eight of the ten chapters. ECF No. 88-3 (Def. Ex. 26).

Dr. Johnson also noted, among other things, that, although one of Dr. Hollis's articles had been accepted for review by the Journal of Negro Education, a letter from the journal's editor indicated that “extensive revisions are required ” because the article contained “errors concerning grammar, typographical errors, punctuation and APA formatting[.]” Id. And so, Dr. Johnson concluded that the comments from Plaintiff's editors “suggest that she is submitting work that isn't ready,” and that applying for tenure at a later date would give Plaintiff time to improve her dossier. Id. at 4.

Following the departmental review committee's review, Dr. Prime made a separate evaluation and recommended that Plaintiff's 2016 Tenure Application be deferred, and that Plaintiff be given an additional year to improve her submission. ECF No. 86-32. In making this recommendation, Dr. Prime noted that, “a closer analysis of [Plaintiff's] publications raises serious questions about the actual depth of her scholarly work.” Id. at 2. And so, Dr. Prime concluded:

Dr. Hollis is without doubt a promising scholar. She understands the value of networking within the academic community and is skilled at seeking opportunities for her own recognition as a scholar. With respect to her research, it is my view that quality has been sacrificed in the pursuit of quantity. Publication in paid journals, and in journals on which one is a member of the editorial board do not engender confidence in their academic contribution and do not carry much weight in the

...