Cases & Developments

Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff is a graduate of the School of Visual Arts and Design (SVAD) at the University of South Carolina, who then became a SVAD technician and adjunct instructor.  She brought multiple claims against the University and a tenured colleague, who had also been her instructor, alleging that he created a hostile environment and retaliated against her after she complained about his behavior.  In adopting the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge on the University’s motion for summary judgment, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims, finding that evidence of plaintiff’s reports of harassing and retaliatory behavior by the colleague were sufficient to raise fact questions of a hostile environment and constructive discharge.  The court also permitted her to proceed on her negligent supervision and retention and her contract claims with respect to the University’s enforcement of its policies.  Her Title IX claims, however, were time-barred.  In departing from a second Report and Recommendation on the colleague’s motion for summary judgment, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her tortious interference with a contract claim, finding sufficient evidence in the record suggesting that but for his behavior her contractual relationship with the University would have continued.   

Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff is a tenured professor and former vice president of research at Arizona State University who was hired in the administrative role to increase research funding.  She brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and her former supervisor after her administrative contract was not renewed due to a downturn in funding proposals and complaints that she had a negative management style.  Plaintiff alleged that she raised concerns that her supervisor created a culture of fear and intimidation among female employees and engaged in gender discrimination.  Plaintiff’s discrimination claims failed because (1) vague assertions that her supervisor also had complaints about his management style that did not result in his demotion did not establish him as an adequate comparator, and (2) criticisms of the performance metrics the University used in evaluating her development of funding proposals did not show that the use of those metrics was pretextual.  Finally, the court rejected her retaliation claim since it found that while her opposition to alleged gender discrimination was protected activity, she failed to identify evidence that her supervisor was aware of that activity.