Noreen W. Swank sued the State of Oklahoma, ex rel. The Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents d/b/a Northeastern State University in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of sex discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and retaliation under Title VII and Title IX. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Noreen Swank began working as a Graduate Assistant at Northeastern State University (NSU) in May 2022. Her direct supervisor, Joshua McCollum, allegedly began sexually discriminating against and harassing her about a week into her employment. The harassment included inappropriate touching, comments about her appearance and clothing, and questions about her sexual history and dating life. Swank alleges that Dr. Cari Keller, Dean of NSU’s Graduate College and McCollum’s supervisor, was aware of and witnessed some of McCollum’s conduct but did nothing to stop it.
On August 3, 2022, Swank complained to Keller about McCollum’s behavior. After her complaint, Swank alleges she was isolated and punished by being removed from work-related communications and events. McCollum was transferred to another campus but continued to have access to internal communications and received positive references. On October 5, 2022, Swank received a negative work review from Keller. On October 10, 2022, Swank was terminated from her position as a Graduate Assistant.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Sex Discrimination The court found that Swank failed to adequately allege facts plausibly supporting a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. Swank did not allege any specific adverse employment action that occurred because of McCollum’s conduct before she complained to Keller. The court determined that Swank’s allegations regarding her treatment after complaining to Keller related to her retaliation claim but not to her discrimination claim.
Title VII Hostile Work Environment The court concluded that Swank plausibly stated a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. Considering the totality of the allegations, including McCollum’s constant inappropriate comments and touching, as well as Keller’s apparent knowledge and lack of action to stop it, the court found it reasonable to infer that McCollum’s conduct altered a term or condition of Swank’s employment and created an abusive environment.
Title IX Sex Discrimination and Harassment The court determined that Swank alleged the necessary facts to plausibly state a Title IX claim. Swank alleged that Keller, as an appropriate person with authority to address the harassment, had actual knowledge of McCollum’s conduct. Additionally, Swank alleged facts suggesting that NSU acted with deliberate indifference to her harassment.
Retaliation Under Title VII and Title IX: The court found that Swank plausibly alleged a retaliation claim. Swank alleged several adverse actions following her complaint, including isolation from work communications and events, removal from recruiting events, a negative review, and ultimately termination. The court determined that these actions could be considered materially adverse to a reasonable employee. Additionally, the court found that the timing of these actions and other alleged facts plausibly supported a causal connection between Swank’s complaint and the adverse actions.
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss, dismissing only the Title VII sex discrimination claim while allowing the Title VII hostile work environment claim, Title IX claim, and retaliation claims to proceed.
Schrag on Law 