McCarter v. The Univ. of N. Carolina At Chapel Hill

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Loretta C. Biggs United States District Judge.

Plaintiff, a former graduate student at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC-CH” or “the University”), initiated this lawsuit on November 20, 2020, against the University and certain of its administrators, faculty, and staff, alleging that they discriminated against him based on his race. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court are two motions: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 25) filed on February 18, 2021; and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 32), filed on April 7, 2021.

Upon reviewing the parties' filings, the Court elects-in the interests of judicial economy, the federal policies of resolving cases on the merits and granting leave to amend freely, and avoiding multiple filings related to the question of which complaint should be the operative complaint here-to begin with the evaluation of Plaintiff's Motion to File his

2

proposed Amended Complaint. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's motion should be denied as futile. For the reasons below, Plaintiff's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

Plaintiff is an African American male and former doctoral student in the Bioinformatics and Computational Biology program, and a certificate member of the Molecular and Cellular Biophysics Program, at Defendant UNC-CH. (ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has sued several University administrators, officers, and staff, as follows: Defendant Kevin M. Guskiewicz, Chancellor of UNC-CH, (id. ¶ 8); Defendant Steven Matson, Dean of the Graduate School, (id. ¶ 15); Defendant Hoi Ning Ngai, Associate Dean of Student Affairs, (id. ¶ 18); Defendant Eric T. Everett, Institutional Research Integrity Officer, (id. ¶ 11); and Defendant Cara Marlow, Business Manager for the Department of Genetics and Curriculum in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Plaintiff's former department, (id. ¶ 14).

Plaintiff has also sued a number of UNC-CH's faculty members: Defendant Leslie Parlise, Chair of the Biochemistry and Biophysics Department, (Id. ¶ 19); Defendant Timothy C. Elston, professor and Director of the Curriculum in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology program, (Id. ¶¶ 9, 24); and Defendant Henrik G. Dohlman, professor and Chair of the Pharmacology Department beginning in October 2016, (Id. ¶¶ 12, 35.) In addition, Defendants Beverly J. Errede, Shawn Gomez, Laura Miller, William Valdar, and Alan Jones are all professors or associate professors. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 13, 16, 17, 20.)

3

Finally, Plaintiff sues one former graduate student: Defendant Sara Kimiko Suzuki-McGirr. (Id. ¶ 21.)

B. Proposed Amended Complaint (Allegations of Discrimination)

In the proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following as the basis for his lawsuit:

Plaintiff was a Ph.D. student at UNC-CH and had attended the University from August 2011 to September 2017. (Id. ¶ 22, 157.) According to Plaintiff, his Ph.D. program had several requirements for graduation: he was required to pass certain required courses and candidacy exams, publish a co-first authored and peer-reviewed scientific manuscript, and write and defend a dissertation. (Id. ¶ 38 n.1.) Plaintiff pursued these requirements by working in research labs supervised by Defendants Dohlman and Errede. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 30.) Plaintiff was the only African American PhD student in either lab. (Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff's research was funded by a research grant he obtained in July 2015 from the National Institute of Health (“NIH”). (Id. ¶ 32.) Defendants Dohlman and Elston sponsored Plaintiff's grant. (Id.) By October 2016, Plaintiff had completed all graduation requirements except for completion of his dissertation. (Id. ¶ 38 n.1.)

To ensure that he was on track to graduate, Plaintiff met annually with his dissertation committee. (Id. ¶ 36.) On October 4, 2016, he presented a summary of his research at his annual meeting with his dissertation committee, composed of Defendants Dohlman, Elston, Errede, Gomez and Miller. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 37.) The meeting did not go well. Plaintiff was asked to leave the room at the conclusion of his presentation for 15 minutes, and then reentered. (Id. ¶ 37.) Defendants Dohlman and Miller exited the meeting prior to it ending without

4

providing feedback. (Id. ¶ 38.) It was unusual and unexpected for members of a dissertation committee to leave without providing feedback. (Id.) The remaining three members then informed Defendant that, while he met the traditional requirements to write and defend his dissertation and graduate from the program, Plaintiff would now be required to author a second manuscript before he could schedule his dissertation defense. (Id.) This added requirement was unique to Plaintiff. (Id.) No. other Ph.D. student was required to author two manuscripts before writing and defending their dissertation. (Id.) Indeed, at least one student was allowed to graduate before publishing his first manuscript. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 42.)

Eager to graduate in December 2016, Plaintiff worked quickly to draft the new manuscript. (Id. ¶¶ 44-48.) Plaintiff repeatedly emailed sections of his draft to his advisors for feedback as follows: to Defendants Dohlman on October 6; Elston on October 17; Errede on October 19; Elston again on October 26; and both Dohlman and Elston again on November 2. (Id.) Only Defendant Errede responded quickly with feedback. (Id. ¶ 46.) In contrast, Defendants Dohlman and Elston-who were Plaintiff's official advisors-were “very busy” providing feedback to other students and did not respond to Plaintiff with feedback for over a month. (Id. ¶¶ 48-51.) The two advisors then demanded on December 13, 2016, that Plaintiff split his manuscript and share half of his research with Matthew Martz, a non-African American student, despite Plaintiff's and Martz's objections. (Id. ¶¶ 53, 54.) When Plaintiff met with Defendant Dohlman the next day, Dohlman insisted he “did not like to help graduate students write manuscripts.” (Id. ¶ 55.) This statement appeared specific to Plaintiff, since Defendant Dohlman was “actively engaged in providing feedback and editing” for non-minority students. (Id.) As a consequence of the unique writing assignment and

5

Defendant Dohlman and Elston's delays providing feedback, Plaintiff was unable to graduate in December 2016. (Id. ¶ 43.)

After refusing to assist Plaintiff for months with his second manuscript, Defendant Dohlman changed his mind on April 7, 2017, and inserted himself into Plaintiff's research. (Id. ¶ 63.) He demanded that Plaintiff include irrelevant research completed by another student in the manuscript. (Id. ¶ 64.) Plaintiff refused because including the irrelevant research would “significantly diminish the quality of his work.” (Id. ¶ 65.) Defendant Errede later agreed with Plaintiff that the irrelevant research “would damage Plaintiff's manuscript.” (Id. ¶ 66.)

Frustrated by delays, Plaintiff sought help from another professor, Barry Lentz, with whom Plaintiff had a better relationship. (Id. ¶ 67.) On Lentz's recommendation, Plaintiff met with Defendant Elston-Director of Plaintiff's program and one of his two official advisors-“to express his concerns regarding potential loss in salary due to the consistent delay tactics by the advisors.” (Id. ¶ 68.) In response, Defendant Elston threatened that, if Plaintiff went forward with his dissertation, Elston would ensure that Plaintiff could not submit his second manuscript for peer-review at a scientific journal. (Id. ¶ 70.) Not to be deterred, Plaintiff nevertheless scheduled his dissertation defense. (Id. ¶ 72.) Defendant Elston then “spread[ ] false information about” Plaintiff to UNC-CH's Director of Diversity Affairs. (Id. ¶ 73.)

Plaintiff's dissertation defense was scheduled for July 7, 2017. (Id. ¶ 84.) Plaintiff continued to have difficulty with his professors leading up to this date. On June 16, Plaintiff

6

met with the Dean of Students at the Graduate School, Leslie Lerea, ^[1] to express a fear of retaliation from his professors. (Id. ¶ 74.) On June 21, Defendant Dohlman instructed Plaintiff to seek feedback on his manuscript from Martz, the student Dohlman had attempted to give half of Plaintiff's research to, who had since resigned from Dohlman's lab. (Id. ¶ 75.) Defendant Elston contacted Plaintiff on June 23 and attempted to intimidate him into relinquishing the public portion of his dissertation defense that candidates traditionally enjoy. (Id. ¶ 76.) Plaintiff relayed his email to Dean Lerea. (Id. ¶ 77.)

Plaintiff met again with Dean Lerea on June 27, 2017. (Id. ¶ 78.) Dean Lerea agreed to add Professor Lentz to Plaintiff's dissertation committee and even allow Professor Lentz to chair the committee if Plaintiff could obtain consent from the other committee members. (Id.) Plaintiff requested such consent from each member, but Defendants Elston, Dohlman, and Errede failed to reply. (Id.)

On July 3, Defendant Elston invited Defendant Valdar to Plaintiff's dissertation defense without first consulting Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 79.) Defendant Valdar asked Plaintiff to meet with him one-on-one prior to the dissertation defense. (Id. ¶ 81.) Defendant Valdar told Plaintiff he “would be attending the dissertation defense as an ‘impartial observer.'” (Id.) Defendant Valdar threatened to cancel Plaintiff's dissertation defense if he did not attend the one-on-one meeting. (Id.) This all appeared to be unique to Plaintiff. Other Ph.D. candidates were not required to meet one-on-one with professors leading up to their dissertation

7

defenses, and other candidates did not have “impartial observers” added last-minute to their...