Seaton v. University of Pennsylvania, CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2037 (E.D. Pa. 11/30/2001)

Page 1

GREGORY SEATON v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2037.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

November 30, 2001.

MEMORANDUM

DALZELL, Judge.

Gregory Seaton is an African-American graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania who alleges in this action that he entered a copy shop near the campus to obtain photocopies for his studies, but was denied service in favor of a white customer. Seaton also claims he was beaten at the shop because he was black.

Named as defendants in the complaint are the Campus Copy Center, the University of Pennsylvania (the "University"), Ronald Shapiro, John Capman, Joseph Bristow, Robert McGrody, and Professor Erling Boe. Before us is the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment of the University of Pennsylvania and Professor Erling Boe and the motion for partial dismissal or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment of Campus Copy Center and its employees.¹

We may consider matters outside the complaint, such as the materials the University and Erling Boe proffer here, if we convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, provided all parties have had a "reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Since discovery has not yet begun and Seaton has not had such opportunity, we decline to rely on outside materials and begin by describing in some detail the facts alleged in the amended complaint.

I. BACKGROUND²

A. Campus Copy Center Incident

Gregory Seaton, a doctoral candidate and graduate assistant in the Department of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, on April 3, 2001 entered Campus Copy Center, a copy shop in the vicinity of the University campus, to obtain photocopies of maps and topographical materials. Am. Compl. at ¶ 19. Seaton waited at the counter to be served for about ten minutes when Professor Erling Boe entered the shop. Am. Compl. at ¶ 20. Seaton is black and Boe is white. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 9, 25. Ronald Shapiro, a manager of Campus Copy, coming from a rear office approached the service counter where Boe was standing to take Boe's order despite the fact that Seaton had come first. Id. An employee of Campus Copy told Shapiro that Seaton had waited in line longer and was the next customer to be served. Seaton stated, "Sir, I was here first. This individual came after me" or words to that effect. Am. Compl. at ¶ 21.

Shapiro allegedly hollered, "You were here first but you will be served last." According to the complaint, this remark was racially motivated and engendered in part by a "climate" on the University of Pennsylvania campus in which racial discrimination is "condoned". Am. Compl. at ¶ 22.

Boe apparently did not do or say anything. Am. Compl. at ¶ 59. He allegedly did not yield to Seaton as the next customer at the service counter. Id. at ¶ 23. Seaton, "stunned, shocked and speechless", left the store. Id. at ¶ 24.

Seaton returned seconds later to question Shapiro, inquiring, "Excuse me. Do you have to stand in line to get service or do you have to be white?". Shapiro responded in a "loud[]" and "rude" tone, "I don't like your attitude. Get out of my store." Id. at ¶ 25. Seaton refused to leave and, rather, demanded that the police be called. Id. at ¶ 26.

Shapiro leaned across the counter and allegedly thrust his finger into Seaton's forehead and shouted, "You idiot!" Id. Seaton claims that he "swiped Shapiro's finger away" with an open hand. Id. at ¶ 27.

Employees of the store, John Capman, Joseph Bristow, and Robert McGrody, then allegedly "assaulted and battered" Seaton. Am. Compl. at ¶ 27.

B. Professor Boe's Letter

Within days of the incident at Campus Copy Center, Seaton wrote what is described as a "widely circulated" e-mail to the University of Pennsylvania community to expose what had happened. Am. Compl., Ex. A. Seaton also initiated this action against the defendants, among them Erling Boe.

Erling Boe is a professor in the Department of Education, the same department where Seaton is a graduate student. Several weeks after the April 3 incident, Professor Boe sent the following letter to Margaret Beale Spencer, a Professor of Education and member of the Board of Overseers and Gregory Seaton's advisor:

  May 31, 2001
  Margaret Beale Spencer, Board of Overseers
  Professor of Education
  Dear Margaret
    In early April I was present during an incident
  between Gregory Seaton, a GSE student, and some of the
  Campus Copy staff. Allegations about what happened
  have been publicized widely around campus and in the
  press, and are currently in dispute. I have refrained
  from speaking out, other than cooperating with the
  investigation by the Penn Police, because my
  participation in the campus discussion would have
  intensified the strong feelings surrounding the
  incident
    Mr. Seaton has made several allegations publicly
  about my conduct in this incident, including that I
  discriminated against him because of race. Recently
  he filed a federal lawsuit against Campus Copy, its
  owner and several employees, the University, and me
  repeating and expanding on these allegations
    I wish to make it very clear that the allegations
  against me are groundless and without any merit.
  Suggestions that I somehow engaged in race
  discrimination, or otherwise acted wrongfully, are
  false. They are also outrageous. Nevertheless, I am
  advised not to discuss the specific content of these
  allegations while the lawsuit is pending.
    The legal process, I understand, often takes time to
  sort out allegations that have merit from those like
  these that do not. It is easy to start a lawsuit. It
  takes longer to defend one, even when the claims have
  no basis. I look forward to completion of this
  process.
  Sincerely,
  Erling E. Boe
  Professor of Education
  Am. Compl., Ex. D.

Seaton characterizes the letter as "a retaliatory effort to unlawfully intimidate and harass the plaintiff and to impair plaintiff's academic standing." Am. Compl. at ¶ 32. "It is likely that a letter writing campaign has been undertaken, and that other letters have been sent to plaintiff's professors, administrators and individuals in positions of academic authority at University." Id. at ¶ 33. Seaton cites no instances of the "letter writing campaign" other than Professor Boe's letter.

C. Relationship between Campus Copy

Center and the University of Pennsylvania

Campus Copy Center is located on University property. Am. Compl. at ¶ 18. Seaton claims that "Campus Copy enjoyed a monopolistic status among vendors on University's campus". Id. at ¶ 16. It is alleged to be the exclusive vendor of "bulk pack" materials assigned as required reading in certain classes. Id. Academic and administrative departments at the University have charge accounts with Campus Copy. The amended complaint also states:

For a long time prior to April 3, 2001, African American and other minority students of University made complaints about the conduct of Campus Copy towards them; to wit, racial discrimination, discourtesy, rudeness and unequal quality of service. University earned a reputation of declining to competently investigate or to act with respect to the said complaints, thereby creating a climate that encouraged unlawful racial discrimination against African American and minority students, and which fostered an understanding that overt discrimination against African Americans and other minorities would be tolerated and condoned. See newspaper article[s] published in Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper, April 12, 2001, Exhibit A hereto, and published [in] Daily Pennsylvania[n] newspapers, April 9 and April 11, 2001, Exhibits B and C, respectively.

Am. Compl. at ¶ 17. Oddly, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily Pennsylvanian articles attached, and incorporated by reference in the complaint, only constitute reportage about the incident and ensuing protests. See Am. Compl. Exs. B and C. The minority students interviewed in them neither complain of past racial discrimination by Campus Copy Center nor the failure of the University to investigate complaints of racial discrimination by minority students. See Am. Compl., Exs. A-C.

II. ANALYSIS

Based upon these allegations, Gregory Seaton asserts eleven separate causes of action. Those claims assert: violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (University and Boe only); 1985(3), and § 1986 (all defendants); attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (all defendants);³ state law torts of negligence (Campus Copy, University and Boe only), assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (all defendants); declaratory judgment (all defendants); "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991", 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (University and Boe only); and Pennsylvania Human Rights Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951-963 (University and Boe only).

A. Motion to Dismiss of Campus Copy Center, Ronald Shapiro, John Capman, Joseph Bristow, and Robert McGrody

Defendants Campus Copy Center, Ronald Shapiro, John Capman, Joseph Bristow, and Robert McGrody (that is, Campus Copy Center and its employees) move for partial dismissal of the complaint. They attack the claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 1986, 1988, and the claims for declaratory relief and an injunction. We address these claims seriatim.

1. Section 1985(3)

Section 1985(3) is a civil rights statute that in only very limited instances affords a private remedy for private conspiracies based on race.⁴

Where the conspiracy does not involve a governmental entity nor contemplate interference with the activities of government, the statute only provides a remedy where the conspiracy is directed to deny the plaintiff constitutional rights secured against the conduct of private parties. See Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 266 (1993); ...