Bayne v. Bowles Hall Foundation

Background

Melissa L. Bayne brought claims against the Bowles Hall Foundation (BHF) and the Regents of the University of California. She alleged that BHF declined to renew her employment contract as Dean of Students at Bowles Hall Residential College after she reported alleged sexist and inappropriate conduct by another advisor, Dr. Alexei Vranich. She asserted retaliation claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title IX, Title VII, and California Labor Code section 1102.5; a California claim for failure to prevent retaliation; and, against BHF, claims for retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Regents removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court to federal court. BHF moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The Regents moved to dismiss all claims against them. BHF joined the Regents’ motion.

Claims Against BHF

The court held that Bayne adequately pleaded her retaliation claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title IX, Title VII, and California Labor Code section 1102.5. At the pleading stage, she needed to allege protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. The court found that her reports about the treatment of women were protected activity; that BHF’s failure to renew her contract could qualify as an adverse employment action; and that the alleged statements expressing displeasure with her reports, the alleged pattern of antagonism, and the timing of the contract decision plausibly supported causation despite the eight-month interval.

The court also found that Bayne adequately pleaded her claim that BHF failed to prevent retaliation. The theory clarified at the hearing was that BHF’s Board of Directors knew that negative student evaluations were retaliatory but relied on them in deciding not to renew her contract. Bayne stipulated that this claim was not based on BHF’s alleged failure to respond to vandalism and theft of her property.

The court rejected BHF’s challenge to the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim. Although the alleged conduct by Dr. Vranich was directed at students, Bayne also alleged facts suggesting that the hostile environment was directed at her, including an effort to sabotage her reputation and hostility from students associated with Dr. Vranich.

The court dismissed Bayne’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct did not rise to the required level of extreme or outrageous conduct. The court found that Bayne adequately alleged severe emotional distress but concluded that BHF’s alleged inaction regarding vandalism and theft, along with the speculative allegation that BHF knew who was responsible, was insufficient. The court gave Bayne leave to amend this claim.

The court found that Bayne adequately pleaded negligent infliction of emotional distress. It concluded that she alleged a duty, breach, causation, and damages based on BHF’s alleged failure to prevent or correct harassment that included vandalism and theft and allegedly caused emotional and psychological harm.

Claims Against the Regents

The court dismissed all five claims asserted against the Regents: Claims One, Two, Three, Four, and Seven. Bayne relied on a joint-employer theory, arguing that the Regents shared control over her Bowles Hall employment with BHF. The court explained that joint-employer status depends on the totality of the circumstances, particularly the entity’s control over the details and terms of the worker’s job.

The court found that the complaint contained virtually no allegations showing that the Regents controlled Bayne in her Bowles Hall position. The allegations that the Regents took over the investigation of Dr. Vranich’s conduct and presumably instructed BHF regarding his termination were insufficient, particularly because the allegation about the instruction was speculative. The court also found that Bayne did not allege facts showing that the Regents knew or should have known about her termination or the other alleged retaliation and failed to take corrective action. The court therefore concluded that the Regents could not be held liable under the alleged joint-employer theory.

Disposition

The court granted the Regents’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Claims One, Two, Three, Four, and Seven as to the Regents only, with leave to amend. The court granted in part and denied in part BHF’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, it granted the motion as to Claim Ten, identified in the order as “(ED),” and dismissed that claim with leave to amend. In all other respects, the court denied BHF’s motion. The court allowed Bayne to file an amended complaint by September 3, 2021.