By Leah Brundidge
A federal judge from the Western District of North Carolina has dismissed a discrimination lawsuit brought by an associate athletic director against North Carolina State University (NC State).
Jermaine Holmes, the former Associate Athletics Director of Academics/Director of Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes at NC State, sued the institution in 2018, alleging that he was the victim of discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination.
The controversy actually began five years ago when Holmes performed an initial analysis of the athletic department to review its current position and future goals, and from this analysis found that the NC State athletic department was potentially in non-compliance with university and federal best practices and labor laws. Holmes subsequently reported his concerns to the university’s Department of Human Resources.
The university fired Holmes from his position within the athletic department in April 2015.
In Holmes’ 2018 compliant, Holmes claimed his firing was not based on his performance. Instead, he alleged he was a victim of racial discrimination, harassment, a hostile work environment, unfair and unequal treatment, public frustrations, verbal reprimands, retaliation, and disparate discipline. The complaint also noted that Holmes was eventually replaced by a white female.
Among the defendants were Carrie Doyle and Michael Mullen, his former coworkers, and NC State.
It is important to note that in 2015 Holmes originally filed a complaint against NC State with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Wiseman, 2018). The EEOC is a federal agency that prohibits discrimination within the workplace by enforcing relevant laws (Doyle, 2019). Representatives from the University were confident that university officials did not mishandle Holmes’ employment. The EEOC complaint was dismissed in 2016.
Legal Complaint
Holmes’ complaint highlighted potential violations of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, retaliation for exercise of the First Amendment, and a lack of equal protection pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Essentially, as an African American male, Holmes believed that he received substandard treatment in comparison to his white counterparts. The complaint also alleged negligent actions from NC State and its employees. Holmes asked for $75,000.00 for incurred and sustained damages and losses due to First Amendment violations, $25,000.000 for “past and future loss of earnings and benefits, and past and future mental and emotional distress, great worry, anxiety, and depression,” and actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages.
Motion to Dismiss
In response to a motion to dismiss from the defendants, the court examined the legal and factual suitability of Holmes’ claims. Essentially, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims were plausible. It is important to note that to ensure an actual dismissal of a claim, the court was required to reject any “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments” made by the plaintiff. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of Holmes and his legal team to ensure that his allegations were indeed plausible, rather than merely a possibility.
To approve a motion to dismiss a case, the following must happen: (a) the court must consider the state-law claims made by the plaintiff, (b) the parties must agree that the respective state law applies, (c) the court must predict the ruling and consider the opinions of the respective state’s Supreme Court on any other state-law disputes. In the case of a lack of governing opinions from the court, the practices of other states may be considered.
Final Decision
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Holmes’ complaint. Ultimately, nothing within the plaintiff’s complaint suggested that he intended to sue the defendants in their individual capacities. More specifically, Holmes’ claims did not allege that he planned to sue Mullen and Doyle, and he failed to plausibly assert any claim against the University of North Carolina (the guardian system of NC State). Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants.
The court also dismissed Holmes’ claims of disparate investigation, disparate discipline, and retaliation. Mullen and Doyle were exempted from “freestanding” claims in their official capacities. In addition to this exemption, the case cited former precedent, which explains that a claim against a state official is essentially a claim against the official’s respective office when the claim is against the particular official in their official capacity. Since NC State is considered an “alter ego” of the state of North Carolina and Doyle and Mullen are employees of the institution, they are considered state officials, which guaranteed dismissal of Holmes’ retaliation allegation. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims for similar reasons.
Fundamentally, the individual defendants received immunity from most of the plaintiff’s claims because they were state officials acting in an official capacity.
To view the full opinion, visit: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190503f58
Leah Brundidge is a first-year doctoral student with the Troy University Sport Management Program. As a former collegiate student-athlete, Leah’s interests lie within the realm of college athletics. Leah currently serves as the Director of Compliance for the Troy University Athletics Department.
