Brown v. William Rainey Harper College
1:16-cv-01071
N.D. Ill.Aug 1, 2017Background
- Christy Brown, an African-American nursing student at William Rainey Harper College, listened to a voicemail from the College’s Director of Nursing, Julie D’Agostino, indicating Brown could pray with patients so long as she was “professional and succinct” and that Brown might be removed from the program if she was not.
- Brown reported the voicemail (and other incidents) to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and to College administrators; she alleges subsequent harassment and adverse actions by instructors Monica Sweeney and Joella Tabaka.
- Incidents alleged: an instructor pressured Brown to attempt a difficult IV placement (which failed) and then lowered her clinical grade; Tabaka allegedly leaked Brown’s student-file information, changed clinical schedules (causing Brown to lose her job), made hostile gestures, and sent/encouraged hostile communications from other students.
- Brown was ultimately prevented from advancing to the program’s Capstone externship and did not receive her practical nursing certificate, though she attended graduation; she alleges two white students were allowed an extended summer opportunity that she was not.
- Procedural posture: Brown (pro se) filed suit alleging violations of Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and FERPA; the College moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court granted dismissal in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VI – intentional racial discrimination | Brown alleges she was treated less favorably than white students (two white students got extended summer remediation) and that staff used racially divisive tactics | College moved to dismiss for failure to plead plausible racial discrimination | Denied dismissal as to the Title VI discrimination claim (plausible comparator allegation survives at pleading stage) |
| Title VI – retaliation | Brown contends OCR complaints prompted adverse actions (schedule changes, grade change, dismissal) | College argues Brown’s OCR complaints concerned religion or non-protected conduct; no protected activity tied to race | Dismissed: Title VI retaliation not adequately alleged because OCR contacts asserted religious (not racial) discrimination and other complaints lack nexus to protected class |
| § 1983 – First Amendment (free speech & free exercise) retaliation | Brown says complaints to OCR/administrators and her prayer with patients are protected expression/religion; subsequent grade changes, schedule changes, and dismissal were retaliatory | College argues claims inadequately pleaded or too narrative/unclear to show causation | Denied dismissal: claims plausibly state First Amendment retaliation and free-exercise interference at pleading stage |
| FERPA and Title IX claims | Brown alleges leakage of student files (FERPA) and references Title IX | College contends FERPA has no private right of action; Title IX claim lacks allegations of sex discrimination | FERPA and Title IX claims dismissed (FERPA no private cause of action; Title IX insufficiently alleged) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 852 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2017) (complaint facts taken as true on motion to dismiss)
- Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2016) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (FERPA does not create a private right of action or enforceable individual right under § 1983)
- Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (student free exercise/speech principles in university context)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for proving intentional discrimination)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussion of McDonnell Douglas framework’s continued relevance)