Lewis v. Ind. Wesleyan Univ.

EMILY LEWIS Plaintiff, v. INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 1:19cv451

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

June 25, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by the defendant, Indiana Wesleyan University ("IWU") on February 25, 2021. Plaintiff, Dr. Emily Lewis ("Dr. Lewis), filed her response on May 6, 2021 to which IWU replied on June 1, 2021.¹

For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment must be granted when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. To determine whether a genuine issue ofmaterial fact exists, the court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).

Under Rule 56, the movant has the initial burden of establishing that a trial is not necessary. Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 770 F.3d 618, 627 (7th Cir. 2014). "That burden may be discharged by showing . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmovant "must go beyond the pleadings (e.g., produce affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file) to demonstrate that there is evidence upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict in [its] favor." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The existence of a mere scintilla of evidence, however, is insufficient to fulfill this requirement." Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). "[S]peculation and conjecture" also cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. Cooney v. Casady, 735 F.3d 514, 519 (7th Cir. 2013). In addition, not all factual disputes will preclude the entry of summary judgment, only those that "could affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in his or her own pleading, but rather must "marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will prove her case." Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). If the nonmoving party does not establish the existence of an essential element on which that party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is proper. Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment "is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit ...." Springer v.Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2008).

Discussion

Dr. Lewis, a 60-year old Black woman, was formerly employed by IWU. In her Complaint she asserts that she was unlawfully demoted, treated differently and/or less favorably in various ways, and ultimately constructively discharged because of her age, race and sex. She also alleges claims of retaliation.

The relevant facts, as alleged by Dr. Lewis, are as follows.² In 2017, Dr. Lewis began working at IWU as the Director of Instructional Design. (Crisp Dep. 13:19-14:07). In her role, she reported to the Executive Director of the Center for Learning and Innovation ("Executive Director"), a role which was held first by Lorne Oke ("Oke") and later by Erin Crisp ("Crisp"). (Lewis Dep. 41:18-41:22; Crisp Dep. 17:08-17:09). Dr. Lewis worked as the Director of Instructional Design from 2017-2019. (Oke Dep. 11:01-11:03). Dr. Lewis was responsible for overseeing a team of instructional designers ("IDs") and guiding the curriculum development process for IWU's academic courses. (Lewis Dep. 43:25-44:5).

Oke served as the Executive Director for 10 years, from 2009 to 2019. (Oke Dep. 8:8-8:21, 10:13-10:14). In his position as Executive Director, he oversaw the intersection between academics and instructional design and technology by working across different environments of the school, and various offices to develop and foster innovation in and around the curriculum. (Oke Dep. 9:03-9:13). In 2018-19, Oke had three directors who worked under him, the Director of Instructional Design, the Director of Faculty Enrichment, and the Director of Research andInstructional Design Team. (Oke Dep. 9:13-9:25). All of the directors on his staff were Caucasian men except for Dr. Lewis. (Oke Dep. 11:11-11:21).

Crisp worked at IWU from 2015 to August of 2020. (Crisp Dep. 8:24-9:03). She was originally hired as an Instructional Designer, and two years later was promoted to the position of Director of Instructional Design. (Crisp Dep. 9:04-9:20). In April 2018, Crisp replaced Oke as the Executive Director of Center of Learning and Innovation. (Crisp Dep. 10:04-10:24). In the Spring of 2019, two departments merged and Crisp's position changed to Associate Vice President for Innovation. (Crisp Dep. 10:15-10:24).

Crisp had no more than five interactions with Dr. Lewis, and Crisp does not remember informally meeting with Dr. Lewis. (Crisp Dep. 19:02-20:02).

As the Director of Instructional Design, Dr. Lewis supervised five IDs. All five IDs were Caucasian. (Lewis Dep 45:24-46:1). Nick Rider ("Rider"), a Caucasian male, served as one of the IDs. (Lewis Dep. 45:24-46:07).

Dr. Lewis performed her job well and was a good researcher. (Oke Dep. 57:25-58:11; 20:04-20:08). Dr. Lewis had a long work history which led her to be comfortable with a wide variety of topics that she was knowledgeable about, and provide IWU with a varied and positive perspective. (Oke Dep. 19:17-19:23). One fellow staff member requested to work with Dr. Lewis because of her professionalism and expertise. (Exhibit L: Rice Requesting Assistance from Dr. Lewis). However, IWU contends that Dr. Lewis came into severe conflict with all of the ID team members who reported to her. (Oke Aff. ¶5). According to Oke, common concerns were that Lewis was dictatorial, often confusing in instructions, and was incompetent. (Oke Aff. ¶ 8). Oke asked the IDs to put their concerns in writing, which they did. (Oke Aff. ¶ 8 and Ex. A.) Okebelieved that Dr. Lewis attempted to control too much, too quickly. (Oke Aff. ¶5). Dr. Lewis does not dispute that she had conflicts with her team members and that they complained to Oke about her management style. (Lewis Dep. 35:7-20; Oke Aff. ¶¶ 4-8).

Dr. Lewis claims that she had good performance reviews. Oke did praise some of her skills, but also noted that perhaps Dr. Lewis didn't fit in with the "Church higher-education world" and that her and her team struggled with their working relationships. Some excerpts from the Performance Reviews are as follows:

"Emily is a very competent person in the field of curriculum development and instructional design. She has exhibited a high level of engagement in her work.";

"She is very adept at planning, organizing, and project management.";

Dr. Lewis has had extensive corporate and academic experience in the ID field. She also knows what it means to be an academic leader and be responsible for curriculum development and delivery. She has done a great job of diving in and analyzing our processes and procedures.";

"She continues to wrestle through the nuances of the Christian HE world. All of her past experience has been in the secular HE world, and we're just a little different. Sometimes honesty is hard for us and Emily is doing a great job of trying to honor the broader culture while taking performance seriously.";

"Emily is communicating very well with her staff and with the peers that she works with. She is patient and attentive to external groups as well as open and honest with her direct reports.";

"Emily and the team continue to make good progress in their working relationships and adjustments to each other and the work that needs to get done in their office. Their journey at the beginning of the year was hampered by some external influences and strained by some miscommunication. I could have been more clear about roles and expectations at the beginning as well which would have helped things progress quicker. Emily and I are giving attention to staff relationships and building a more unified perspective within the staff. We believe this will pay off and that we're on our way to encouraging a healthier work place." (Ex. Q: Lewis' Performance Evaluations).

In 2017, during a meeting with Dr. Lewis and Rider, Oke instructed Dr. Lewis to"step-back" and let Rider lead the team. (Lewis Affidavit ¶ 4). In her Complaint, Dr. Lewis characterizes this as a demotion. It will be referred to hereafter as "the 2017 demotion". After Dr. Lewis returned from a two-day vacation, she informed Oke that she was not going to follow the direction of Rider as she was his manager and not the other way around. (Lewis Affidavit ¶ 5).

During the 2017-2018 school year, Rider informed Dr. Lewis that he was afraid of her and that he had difficulty taking direction from her. Dr. Lewis requested that Oke organize additional training for the staff, who, for many of them, were working with an African-American for the first time. (Lewis Dep. 47:13-47:25, 49:11-49:25). In response, Oke gave a presentation where he did not mention anything about diversity, and simply spoke about being 'caring and loving'. (Lewis Dep. 54:10-54:17).

Prior to August 2018, Dr. Lewis informed Oke that she believed that her subordinates did not listen to her, did not communicate with her and were...