Rodriguez-monguio v. The Ohio State Univ.

Rosa Rodriguez-Monguio, Plaintiff

v.The Ohio State University, Defendant

Civil Action 2:08-cv-00139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: January 31, 2011

Magistrate Judge Abel

Order

This matter is before the Court on defendant The Ohio State University's ("OSU") August 31, 2010 motion for summary judgment (doc. 57).

I. Allegations in the Complaint

On May 5, 2005, OSU appointed plaintiff Dr. Rosa Rodriguez-Monguio ("Rodriguez") to a two-year term as a research associate member of the Center for Health Outcomes, Policy and Evaluation Studies ("HOPES"). Compl. at ¶ 9. On December 15, 2005, OSU appointed Dr. Rodriguez as a Clinical Assistant Professor ("CAP") with the School of Public Health Division of Health Services Management and Policy ("HSMP") Id. at ¶ 10. From 2005-2007, Dr. Rodriguez worked extensively with her significant other, Enrique Seoane-Vazquez ("Seoane"), an assistant professor with OSU's College of Pharmacy. Id. at ¶ 11.

On August 22, 2005, Seoane filed a complaint concerning violations of OSU's policies on affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and non-discrimination and harassment. Id. at ¶ 12. On September 6, 2006, Seoane filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("OCRC"). Id. at ¶ 13. Dr. Rodiguez supported Seoane in filing and prosecuting his complaints. Id. at ¶ 14.

On October 1, 2006, OSU terminated Dr. Rodriguez's CAP appointment by terminating her salary and reappointing her to an unsalaried position. Id. at ¶ 15. On December 8, 2006, OSU downgraded her title from Clinical Assistant Professor to "lecturer" and terminated her HOPES appointment prematurely. Id. at ¶ 16.

On December 21, 2006, Dr. Rodriguez requested that Dr. Allard Dembe stop his discriminatory and retaliatory activities directed toward her and informed him that she had consulted an attorney. Id. at ¶ 17. On January 3, 2007, Dr. Rodriguez filed a complaint with the OSU's Office of Human Resources alleging discrimination and retaliation against her. Id. at ¶ 18. The OSU employees involved in retaliating and discriminating against Rodriguez were Dr. Dembe, Dr. Milap Hahta and Dr. Raj Balkrishnan. Id. at ¶ 22. Evidence of OSU's discriminatory and retaliatory conduct includes redefining the terms and conditions of her employment, downgrading her title, terminating her HOPES appointment prematurely, refusing to renew her CAP appointment, not permitting her to serve as principal investigator on grants, obstructing her pursuit of grant funding and proposals, evicting her from her office, rejecting herapplication for a tenure track position, and discouraging students from taking classes taught by her. Id. at ¶¶ 25-31.

II. Arguments of the Parties

A. Defendant

According to defendant, plaintiff held several appointments with OSU's College of Public Health ("CPH"), namely Visiting Scholar, Adjunct Assistant Professor, and Clinical Assistant Professor. Additionally, in May 2005, Dr. Rodriguez became a member of HOPES, a center located at CPH that conducts applied health service research studies. Membership in HOPES does not require any employment relationship with HOPES or OSU. Dembe Dep. 206:18-22. In 2004, Dr. Rodriguez approached the college and requested to teach courses without pay. She was given an unsalaried auxiliary appointment, which was renewed annually until she left OSU. See OSU Dep. Ex. 31, 33 & 35; Householder Dep. 32:17-33:16.

In June 2005, Dr. Arkes, interim director of HOPES, emailed Dr. Rodriguez concerning options to pay her as an employee of HOPES. Arkes Aff. ¶ 3; Exh. B. Dr. Rodriguez responded that she would provide half of her salary in the form of grants or research monies. Arkes Aff. ¶3; Exh. D. Dr. Rodriguez was offered a one-year part-time paid position with HOPES and HSMP. On December 15, 2005, OSU offered Dr. Rodriguez a position as an an Auxiliary Clinical Assistant Professor, effective January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. The position was a 56% appointment with a total annual base salary of $39,000. OSU Dep. Ex 34. Dr. Rodriguez was informed that theposition carried no presumption of academic tenure or reappointment. Id. On October 30, 2006, Dr. Rodriguez was informed that her position would not be renewed. Doc. 5713. In December 2006, it was agreed that Dr. Rodriguez would teach two classes in spring quarter of 2007. She would be paid $4,000 for each course. Id.

Dr. Rodriguez's last day at OSU was June 29, 2007. Compl. ¶ 2.

In September 2006, HSMP advertised a job posting for a tenure track faculty position. By October 17, 2006, HSMP received 14 applications. Dembe Aff. ¶ 4; Exh. G. By November 14, 2006, HSMP selected three strong candidates for the position. Dembe Aff. ¶ 4. Exh. I. Dr. Rodriguez did not apply for the position until December 13, 2006. Rodriguez Dep. 200:18; Dembe Aff. ¶ 6; OSU Dep, Ex. 38. Although Dr. Rodriguez was considered for the position, she was not selected.

On January 3, 2007, Dr. Rodriguez filed an internal complaint alleging discrimination and harassment by Dr. Dembe¹ and Dr. Nahata.² Compl. Ex. 7. On March 16, 2007, Dr. Rodriguez filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation and national origin discrimination from October 1, 2006 through January 12, 2007. Compl. Exh. 1.

In June 2007, Dr. Rodriguez began to work for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst as a researcher, and in the fall of 2007, she assumed a tenure track position as an assistant professor. Rodriguez Dep. 39-40; 316:1-8.

Defendant argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all factual allegations that are beyond the scope of Dr. Rodriguez's EEOC charge. According to defendant, many of Dr. Rodriguez's claims are based on allegedly discriminatory acts that occurred prior to the filing of her EEOC charge but were never mentioned, referenced, or alleged in her charge. Dr. Rodriguez's EEOC charge alleged that she was demoted from her salaried appointment as a Clinical Assistant Professor and that her application for a tenure track position was rejected. In this action, however, Dr. Rodriguez asserts three additional discriminatory actions taken by OSU: (1) she was terminated three months before the end of her one-year contract; (2) students were discouraged from taking classes taught by her; and (3) her HOPES appointment was terminated prematurely. OSU maintains that Dr. Rodriguez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to these acts. The charge also indicates that the earliest date that the alleged discrimination took place was October 1, 2006, and the latest date was January 12, 2007. Any alleged acts of discrimination that took place outside of this time frame is also barred because it is beyond the scope of the EEOC charge. Additionally, the scope of the EEOC charge is limited to alleged acts of discrimination or retaliation that occurred 300 days prior to filing the charge. As aresult, any alleged discriminatory actions occurring more than 300 days before March 16, 2007 are also barred.

Defendant also argues that plaintiff's allegations that OSU terminated her paid appointment three months earlier than the contract term, that OSU discouraged students from taking her class, and that OSU terminated her HOPES membership are simply not true.

OSU further argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Dr. Rodriguez's national origin discrimination claims because she cannot present any direct or indirect evidence of discrimination.

Dr. Rodriguez complains about two actions by OSU that occurred after her one-year paid appointment ended. OSU informed Dr. Rodriguez that she would no longer be able to serve as a principal investigator ("PI") on grants and that she would no longer be assigned an office at OSU. OSU argues that claims based on these two acts must fail because a Title VII plaintiff must demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action. These actions, however, occurred after her employment had ended. In fact, these actions were taken precisely because she was no longer an OSU employee.

OSU further argues that its decision not to hire Dr. Rodriguez into a tenure track position fails because Dr. Rodriguez cannot demonstrate the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination. OSU maintains that it selected another candidate who had better qualifications than Dr. Rodriguez. OSU also maintains that Dr. Rodriguez cannotdemonstrate a prima facie case of national origin discrimination, and, even if she could, OSU has shown a legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.

OSU argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Dr. Rodriguez's claim for discrimination by association because she cannot demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact to support her claim of discrimination based on Dr. Seoane's national origin. Dr. Rodriguez's claims for retaliation, whether direct or associational, also fail as a matter of law. With respect to her claim for associational retaliation, Dr. Rodriguez cannot show that she engaged in any protected activity on behalf of Dr. Seoane. Protected activity constitutes either participation in any proceeding under Title VII or opposition to a discriminatory practice under Title VII. Plaintiff must show that she engaged in active, consistent, opposing activities or participated in a proceeding under Title VII. Defendant argues that plaintiff has no evidence that she took any actions to participate in a Title VII proceeding or that she took any actions in opposition to a discriminatory practice in support of Dr. Seoane. Knowledge that Dr. Rodriguez worked with Dr. Seoane on grants and publications does not constitute knowledge on the part of OSU that she engaged in protected activity.

OSU further argues that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for retaliation or associational...