Stark v. University of Southern Mississippi
8 F. Supp. 3d 825
S.D. Miss.2014Background
- Plaintiff sued USM, Hammond, Saunders, and later the Board in state court for various state-law torts and contract claims arising from her employment as Senior Associate Athletics Director for Internal Affairs.
- Federal claims were added in an amended state court complaint, including Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and Lilly Ledbetter Act violations related to gender discrimination.
- Removal to federal court occurred; defendants Saunders and USM joined in the removal; Plaintiff later amended to add § 1983 claims for Equal Protection and Due Process, plus First Amendment claims.
- Saunders moved to dismiss the § 1983 claims; Plaintiff moved to strike Saunders’ late-filed reply to the motion to dismiss.
- The court addressed (i) the timeliness of the reply and (ii) whether the § 1983 claims against Saunders survive Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny and qualified-immunity analysis.
- At the pleading stage, some claims against Saunders were dismissed while others proceeded or remained pending, with guidance that certain claims could be revisited at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the First Amendment retaliation claim barred by qualified immunity | Saunders violated a clearly established right by retaliating against speech. | Speech within employment context is not protected; no clearly established right violated. | First Amendment claim dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds. |
| Does EP §1983 equal-protection claim survive | Gender discrimination and unequal treatment violated equal protection; wage disparity alleged. | Engquist class-of-one bar applies to public employment; need for similarly situated comparator | Unequal-pay claim dismissed; failure-to-promote claim survives for §1983 liability against Saunders. |
| Did Plaintiff plead personal involvement of Saunders in discriminatory hiring | Saunders personally involved in hiring Jeff Hammond despite qualifications. | Need specific personal involvement; pleadings insufficient for some claims. | Plaintiff adequately pled Saunders’ personal involvement for the hiring claim; §1983 claim allowed to proceed. |
| Are procedural due process claims viable under the due process framework | Handbook-created rights to grievances heard and resolved constitute protected property interests. | No protected property interest absent an employment contract or constitutionally protected status; McArn reliance questioned. | Procedural due process claim survives at pleading; qualified-immunity analysis to be revisited at summary judgment. |
| Are substantive due process claims viable against Saunders | Due process violation from arbitrary and capricious acts depriving employment benefits. | Employment decisions and negligence fall outside substantive due process; high bar to prove shock-the-conscience standard. | Substantive due process claim dismissed at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (official duties limit First Amendment protection for employee speech)
- Davis v. McKinney, 518 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (public employee speech context; some communications relate to job duties)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-of-one equal protection limit in public employment)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard for public officials)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity (often applied flexibly))