Jennings v. Frostburg State Univ.

679 F.Supp.3d 240

Ryan deM. JENNINGS, Plaintiff, v. FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. ELH-21-656

United States District Court, D. Maryland

Signed June 27, 2023

Neil R. Lebowitz, Law Office of Neil R. Lebowitz, LLC t/a Lebowitz Law Firm, Columbia, MD, for Plaintiff.

Kathryn Joyce Bradley, Lillian Lane Reynolds, Michael Edward Rowan, Office of the Attorney General, Higher Education Division, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Ryan deM. Jennings, Ph.D., a disabled biology professor, was hired to teach at Frostburg State University ("FSU" or "Frostburg"). After his contract was not renewed, Jennings filed an employment discrimination action against five defendants: Frostburg, a public institution of higher learning; the Board of Regents, University System of Maryland (the "Board"); the University System of Maryland ("USM"); the State of Maryland (the "State"); and the president of Frostburg, Ronald H. Nowaczyk, Ph.D., in his individual and official capacities. See ECF 2 (the "Complaint").¹ Plaintiff alleges that he is non-ambulatory but able to perform the essential functions of his job as an Assistant Professor in Biology. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11, 14.

The Complaint asserts claims for disability discrimination (Counts I and II); retaliation (Counts III and IV); and failure to accommodate (Counts V and VI). The claims are lodged under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, as well as the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act ("MFEPA"), Md. Code (2020 Repl. Vol.) §§ 20-601 et seq. of the State Government Article ("S.G."). See ECF 2, ¶¶ 29-98. Jennings seeks monetary damages, inclusive of back pay, back benefits, and compensatory damages, as well as "pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs." ECF 2 at 12.² In addition, Jennings seeks reinstatement or, in the alternative, an award of "front pay and front benefits." Id.

Defendants previously filed a "Partial Motion to Dismiss." ECF 12. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 20) and Order (ECF 21) of December 16, 2021, I granted the motion, in part, dismissing President Nowaczyk in his individual capacity. However, President Nowaczyk remains a defendant in his official capacity. Defendants' Answer to the Complaint followed on January 31, 2022. ECF 26.

On January 27, 2023, defendants filed a "Motion for Leave to Amend Answer" (ECF 54), supported by a memorandum (ECF 54-1) (collectively, the "Motion to Amend"), asking the Court to permit them to "amend their answer to add as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies" for his failure to accommodate claim under MFEPA (Count V). ECF 54-1 at 1. The Motion to Amend is supported by two exhibits. See ECF 54-2; ECF 54-3. Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Amend (ECF 81), and defendants have replied (ECF 97).

Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF 55), supported by a memorandum (ECF 55-1) (collectively, the "Summary Judgment Motion"). The Summary Judgment Motion is supported by forty exhibits. See ECF 55-4 through 55-43. Plaintiff opposes the Summary Judgment Motion (ECF 82, "Opposition"), and submitted sixty-four exhibits. See ECF 82-4 through 82-67. Plaintiff filed his memorandum (ECF 83-1) and various exhibits (ECF 83-2 through 83-15) under seal. Although the exhibits remain under seal, plaintiff filed a redacted copy of his memorandum in support of the Opposition, excluding from public view only information that is properly sealed. ECF 100-1. Defendants have replied. ECF 91.

In addition, plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation" (ECF 62), supported by a memorandum (ECF 62-1) (collectively, the "Motion for Sanctions"). It is accompanied by five exhibits. ECF 62-2 through 62-6. Plaintiff alleges that, on December 14, 2022, just before the close of discovery, "Defendants provided Plaintiff with an Affidavit indicating that they, by their own admission, had destroyed evidence pertinent to this case," referring to text messages stored on the respective FSU-issue cell phones of Dr. Dorothy Campbell and Dr. Elizabeth Throop. ECF 62-1 at 1. Defendants oppose the Motion for Sanctions. ECF 85. Plaintiff has replied. ECF 88.

The record is voluminous. Plaintiff points out that discovery yielded "nearly 1,600 pages of deposition testimony" and "more than 15,000 pages of documents." ECF 83-1 at 1. In sum, the parties' exhibits total almost 1,200 pages. See ECF 55; ECF 82; ECF 83; ECF 91.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny defendants' Motion to Amend (ECF 54); grant in part and deny in part defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (ECF 55); and deny plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF 62).

I. Factual Background³

Frostburg is a public institution of higher education and a constituent institution of the USM. Md. Code (2022 Repl. Vol.), § 12-101(b)(6)(vii) of the Education Article. Nowaczyk has been President of FSU at all relevant times. ECF 82-6 (Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories) at 4.

Jennings received his Ph.D. in Ecology and Environmental Sciences from Montana State University in 2015. ECF 82-13 (Jennings FSU Application) at 4. From 2015 until 2017, when plaintiff commenced work at Frostburg, Jennings held a Visiting Assistant Professor position at Mercer University, where he taught several courses in biology. Id.

In May 2017, defendants hired plaintiff as a full-time, tenure-track Assistant Professor in Biology. See ECF 82-17 (Employment Confirmation Letter). His position began on August 16, 2017. ECF 82-18 (Employment Agreement). Jennings has "Spinal Muscular Atrophy" and is non-ambulatory, requiring him to use a customized power wheelchair. ECF 82-7 (Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories) at 11. Nevertheless, Jennings alleges that, at all relevant times, he "could perform the essential functions of his job, with or without a reasonable accommodation." ECF 2, ¶ 14; see also id. ¶¶ 10, 11.

Jennings moved to Maryland from Macon, Georgia to take the position at Frostburg. ECF 82-12 (Jennings Dep.) at 54. He testified that he "had to purchase and remodel a home to make it wheelchair accessible" (id.) and estimates that the renovations cost "in excess of $30,000." ECF 82-7 (Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories) at 8. His first-year salary at Frostburg was $56,500. ECF 55-11 (Employment Agreement) at 2.

Plaintiff claims that his time at FSU was marked by several "achievements." ECF 2, ¶ 13. For example, Jennings "was awarded a PELEF grant ($1400)," mentored "multiple students in Independent Research (BIOL 499)," "was a co-author on a published, peer-reviewed paper," and "joined multiple committees on campus and within the greater Frostburg community." ECF 91-16 (Jennings Second Year Evaluation) at 5. Jennings also served on the "Faculty Workload and Compensation Subcommittee," as well as "the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Advisory Group"; acted as the "Department Recording Secretary" for the Biology Department (the "Department"); "taught greater than a full load of course credit hours"; and "led a research program that included undergraduate research students and a cross-disciplinary collaborator in [FSU's] Geography Department." ECF 82-7 (Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories) at 11-12. In addition, Jennings served "the community at large on the Board of Directors for the Resources for Independence Center for Independent Living in Cumberland." Id. at 12.

About sixteen months after plaintiff commenced work at FSU, President Nowaczyk sent Jennings a letter dated December 13, 2018, informing him that his contract with FSU would not be renewed. See ECF 55-36 (President Nowaczyk Letter). Further, plaintiff was told that his employment with FSU would end on May 23, 2019. Id.

According to Jennings, the events leading to his termination began in the fall of 2017. ECF 2, ¶ 16. Jennings began communicating requests for accommodations when he began working at Frostburg. See ECF 82-7 (Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories) at 12; ECF 82-20 (Accommodations Request E-mail). In particular, beginning in the fall of 2017, he requested the installation of power door openers for his lab and for the restroom. See ECF 82-19 (Puthoff Accommodations E-mail); ECF 82-20 (Accommodations Request E-mail); ECF 82-21 (FSU Accommodation Request Form). Jennings testified that the door to the lab room where he taught was "a heavy and hard door," and that although on some days he "managed to be able to bust it open on [his] own," he generally required the assistance of his students or lab assistant to access the room. ECF 82-12 (Jennings Dep.) at 14. He often kept the door open because "otherwise [he] couldn't even be in the workspace," but "would be criticized" by other faculty members for doing so. Id. at 15-16.

Defendants did not install the power door openers. See ECF 55-1 at 29. But, Jennings asserts, and defendants do not dispute, that the requests were never formally denied. See ECF 82-12 (Jennings Dep.) at 20.

Frostburg uses an evaluative process to determine whether to renew the contracts of full-time, tenure-track Assistant Professors. See ECF 55-19 (FSU Faculty Handbook) at 19-20. The evaluation procedure for first-year faculty is essentially the same as for second-year faculty, but takes place during a different time frame. Id. at 21-22. For second-year faculty, the process begins on October 30, when the Department Chair sends the Department's recommendation of renewal or nonrenewal to the faculty member. Id. at 21. The faculty member may send a written rebuttal to the Dean, opposing the Department's recommendation, and the Dean then sends a recommendation to the Provost and to the faculty member. Id. The faulty member may then send another...