Gadling-Cole v. West Chester University, 868 F. Supp. 2d 390

Background

Plaintiff Charnetta Gadling-Cole, a Baptist, worked as Frederick Douglas Visiting Scholar in West Chester University’s Social Work Dept. starting January 2008 as an adjunct teaching Human Behavior and the Social Environment II.
Faculty Defendants (five tenured/tenure-track members) openly supported LGBTQ rights; Plaintiff’s religious beliefs conflicted with advocating those lifestyles.
Plaintiff faced hostile treatment, exclusion from meetings, and pressure to advocate for LGBTQ causes during hiring/promotion processes.
Plaintiff applied for a tenure-track Assistant Professor position in February 2009; another candidate affiliated with LGBTQ community was interviewed; Plaintiff was not selected.
Plaintiff filed internal Social Equity complaints and alleged discriminatory/retaliatory conduct following her complaints; University investigated but allegedly inadequately, delaying remedial action.
Plaintiff amended the complaint; Defendants moved to dismiss, with the court ultimately denying in part and granting in part, including mootness of an earlier motion and dismissal of certain claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether individual faculty defendants may be sued under Title VII	Gadling-Cole argues religious discrimination claims against individuals cognizable	West Chester and Faculty Defendants contend individuals cannot be liable under Title VII	Counts I–II against individual defendants dismissed
Whether Title VII religious discrimination claims against West Chester are cognizable	Discrimination based on bona fide religious beliefs; not purely sexual orientation	Prowel controls; alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation cloaked as religion	Plaintiff’s Title VII religious discrimination claims against West Chester survive (denial of dismissal)
Whether hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII survive	Discrimination and hostile environment based on religion; retaliation for complaints	Claims should be dismissed or limited	Title VII hostile environment/retaliation claims against West Chester survive; deficient claims against individuals dismissed; further analysis at later stage possible
Whether First Amendment §1983 free speech claim against faculty defendants is viable	Statements to internal bodies constitute protected speech	Speech was employee grievance, not protected citizen speech; insufficient facts for substantial causal link	First Amendment claims against faculty defendants dismissed with prejudice
Whether Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim is viable	Other applicant treated more favorably during interview; religious status implicated	Plaintiff failed to show similarly situated comparators or fundamental rights injury	Equal protection claim against faculty defendants survives

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible grounds for relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard governs Rule 12(b)(6))
Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996) (individuals not liable under Title VII)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties not protected)
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (test for protected speech and public concern)
Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2009) (religious discrimination not cognizable if based on sexual orientation)
Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001) (Title VII prohibits discrimination; not based on sexual orientation)
Abramson v. William Paterson College of New Jersey, 260 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2001) (need for showing pervasive discriminatory environment)
Menges v. Blagojevich, 451 F. Supp. 2d 992 (C.D. Ill. 2006) (religious discrimination claims under Title VII for abortion/contraceptives)
E.E.O.C. v. University of Detroit, 904 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1990) (religious discrimination claims sanctioned under Title VII)
E.E.O.C. v. A.F.S.C.M.E., 937 F. Supp. 166 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (agency fees and religious beliefs considerations)
Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1999) (religious discrimination claims—scope of hostile environment)
Harris v. Supervalu Holdings-PA LLC, 262 Fed. Appx. 470 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal where evidence insufficient)