Wallace v. Bd. of Supervisors for the Univ. of La. Sys.

DAWN WALLACE v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM(SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY)

CIVIL ACTION 14-657-SDD-RLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

December 6, 2016

RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment¹ filed by Defendant Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System (Southeastern Louisiana University)("Defendant"). Plaintiff Dawn Wallace ("Plaintiff") has filed an Opposition² to which the Defendant filed a Reply.³ For the following reasons, the Court finds that material issues of fact are present in this case, and summary judgment is improper.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a tenured professor currently teaching at Southeastern Louisiana University (SLU) in Hammond, Louisiana.⁴ In August of 2000, Plaintiff was appointed to a tenure-track position in SLU's College of Business and assigned to the Department ofGeneral Business.⁵ Plaintiff alleges that, subsequent to her hiring, Dr. Yu Hsing, head of Plaintiff's department, commented to Plaintiff that he believed her starting salary to be satisfactory for a single woman and that, should Plaintiff marry, her future spouse's salary combined with her salary would be a "great improvement."⁶

Plaintiff contends that, at the time of her hire, along with the skills, education and knowledge generally required, all tenure-track faculty in the College of Business were also required to hold a terminal degree (such as a Ph.D.) or have "All But Dissertation" completed status.⁷ Plaintiff alleges that her credentials include: an undergraduate degree in Accounting with a minor in Management from SLU; a MBA from SLU; a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership and Research from Louisiana State University (LSU); private sector experience five years prior to her appointment; and eighteen additional hours of graduate-level Management courses.⁸

In June of 2005, Plaintiff attended a business meeting in Germany with the Dean of the College of Business, Randy Settoon ("Settoon"), during which Plaintiff contends Settoon propositioned her. Plaintiff alleges that, when she declined this advance, Settoon responded: "So you mean that I don't get to see you naked until after you get tenure?"⁹

In August of 2005, Plaintiff became the Director of Graduate Business Programs which was a twelve-month administrative position. Plaintiff claims that, when she returned to her faculty position, a nine-month position, she did not receive the same compensation as male colleagues. She also claims that this was in contravention ofSLU's change-in-status policy which requires that "[a]ny employee whose status changes from a twelve-month to a nine-month salary basis shall be offered a salary consistent with similar positions at the institution, at similar SREB institutions, or as approved by the Board."¹⁰ Plaintiff contends this male/female distinction in faculty salary constitutes gender discrimination.¹¹ Plaintiff further claims that she was subsequently encouraged by Settoon to take additional business classes to become AACSB¹² academically qualified. Thus, Plaintiff took additional hours of Management classes which she claims qualified her to teach Management under the AACSB guidelines.¹³

Plaintiff alleges that the College of Business was in the process of being reorganized which would result in the Department of General Business being dissolved; thus, plans were made for her transfer to the Management Department. Plaintiff claims that Settoon promised her a raise commensurate with her male colleagues upon her transfer to Management, as she had complied with his request to complete Management coursework.¹⁴ Plaintiff received tenure in 2006 and points out that her tenure recommendation noted her "professionalism, initiative, and collegiality."¹⁵

After she received tenure, Plaintiff claims that Settoon assigned her additional duties and committee positions in the College of Business.¹⁶ Plaintiff also claims that shetaught an overload course and an additional course with no compensation.¹⁷

In October of 2008, Plaintiff alleges Settoon resumed his pursuit of her after separating from his wife. Settoon allegedly again promised Plaintiff increased pay upon joining the Management Department and, allegedly, also suggested that she could eventually become the Assistant Dean. Plaintiff contends she agreed to date Settoon, and this relationship lasted two months.¹⁸ When Plaintiff broke off this relationship with Settoon in December of 2008, Plaintiff claims that Settoon's attitude toward her quickly changed, and she was removed from extra duties and committee positions.¹⁹

In August of 2009, the reorganization of the College of Business took place, which dissolved and split the College of General Business faculty into the fields of Management and Economics. Plaintiff was transferred to the Management Department as planned, but she claims her salary was not adjusted to the levels of the male Management Department professors as had been promised. Further, Plaintiff contends she has not been allowed to teach upper level Management courses although she is qualified to do so based on the 18 extra hours of coursework performed under AACSB guidelines.²⁰

In May of 2010, Plaintiff hand-delivered a sexual harassment and discrimination complaint to Gene Pregeant ("Pregeant"), the EEO Compliance Officer for SLU. Plaintiff contends she described Settoon's behavior beginning on the business trip to Germany and the subsequent actions taken.²¹ Plaintiff contends that, on June 15, 2010, Pregeant addressed her complaint and advised that Settoon denied making any sexual advancesin Germany, which ended the inquiry. Pregeant allegedly advised Plaintiff that her complaint was without merit singularly based on Settoon's denial. Plaintiff claims the conversation ended there, and Pregeant offered Plaintiff no further assistance or advice regarding options of raising her concerns to the EEOC.²²

During this time frame, Settoon called a meeting of all Department Heads of the College of Business and allegedly informed all attendees of Plaintiff's discrimination complaint. Plaintiff contends this violated published SLU policies regarding the confidentiality of harassment complaints and that such action amounted to retaliation causing Plaintiff embarrassment, humiliation, and isolation. Further, Plaintiff contends Settoon's comments also encouraged retaliation against her by others in the department.²³ Plaintiff claims that her Department Head, Dr. Antoinette Phillips ("Phillips), was in attendance at this meeting.²⁴

Realizing that Settoon never intended to raise her pay, Plaintiff went back to Pregeant in August of 2010 and raised concerns about possible violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and wage discrimination. Pregeant again found no merit to Plaintiff's concerns and provided her with a legal interpretation of the EPA that Plaintiff alleges was intended to dissuade her from pursuing her rights.²⁵

Following Settoon's department meeting, Plaintiff contends she began experiencing retaliatory actions by Phillips along with increased retaliatory actions by Settoon.²⁶ On December 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC alleging wagediscrimination on the basis of gender.²⁷ Plaintiff contends that these acts of retaliation by Phillips, Settoon, and Pregeant continued, and further, her College of Business colleagues became distant and unfriendly towards her as a result of SLU failing to uphold its duty to provide confidentiality in Plaintiff's complaint.²⁸ Plaintiff claims she suffered, inter alia, the following acts of retaliation as a result of her complaint: (1) she was humiliated and undermined by Dr. Phillips changing the grade of one of her failing students without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent; (2) Dr. Phillips became highly confrontational with Plaintiff regarding routine student complaints when she had previously been supported regarding same; (3) Plaintiff received a 62.9% evaluation score after filing her charge when she had previously received scores of 92.50% and 100%; (4) Plaintiff was suddenly barred from setting her own course schedule when she had previously been allowed to do so; (5) Plaintiff was assigned to teach during "undesirable times of the day"; (6) Plaintiff was required to provide reports on short notice and under extreme pressure; (7) Plaintiff was required to teach in a volunteer program to prevent her from teaching Continuing Education programs that would enhance her pay; and (8) Plaintiff was not allowed to list summer courses as 100% online and was refused the opportunity to teach upper level courses.²⁹ When Plaintiff approached Settoon - in his role as Dean - regarding some of Phillips' actions, she claims Settoon told her that Phillips did not like her.³⁰ In the summer of 2011, Plaintiff again complained to Pregeant about the actions she deemed retaliatory, and she was again allegedly met with noinvestigation and no assistance.³¹ Plaintiff filed an additional charge of retaliation with the EEOC on December 16, 2011.³²

While Plaintiff remains employed by SLU, she contends the retaliation is presently ongoing. Although Plaintiff claims she is qualified to teach upper level Management courses, she contends she is only allowed to teach lower level courses since filing her EEOC complaint, which renders her salary amongst the lowest in the College of Business. Plaintiff also alleges she is not being properly evaluated allegedly due to her pending EEOC charges.³³ Further, Plaintiff contends that, as a result of these actions, her reputation with students and colleagues has suffered along with her physical and mental well-being. Plaintiff receives treatment from a therapist to address these issues and alleges physical symptoms related to her stress that require medical monitoring and treatment.³⁴

Upon receiving her Right to Sue letter from the EEOC, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Equal...