Gardner v. Wise

Background

John B. Gardner, representing himself, sued Tanna E. Wise, Robert Neugeboren, and Huntington Lambert. Gardner alleged that he was admitted to the Harvard Extension School’s Masters in Liberal Arts program in January 2019 and was administratively removed later that month. He sought reinstatement, preservation of communications, dismissal of Wise’s university complaint, and correction of Wise’s LinkedIn profile. He initially alleged discrimination based on veteran status in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In his objections, he also argued that he may have been treated differently because of his race or ethnicity and alleged retaliation.

Gardner’s complaint did not use numbered paragraphs or provide a short and plain statement of his claims. Instead, it asked the court to review more than 100 pages of attached emails, commentary, and internet links. Gardner also applied to proceed without paying filing fees and moved for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate reinstatement.

Report and Recommendation and Objections

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying Gardner’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissing the case without prejudice. The recommendation found that the complaint failed to meet the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s pleading requirements. It also found that veteran status is not protected under Title VI and that Gardner had not alleged facts showing that race or ethnicity motivated the defendants’ conduct.

Gardner objected. The district court reviewed properly specific objections independently and reviewed nonspecific objections for clear error. The court construed Gardner’s filings liberally because he was representing himself, but explained that he still had to allege enough facts to support his claims.

Title VI Claims

The court held that Gardner could not state a Title VI discrimination claim based on veteran status because Title VI protects against discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Although Gardner referred to his “identity,” race, or ethnicity, the court found that he alleged no facts showing that race or ethnicity motivated the defendants’ actions. The court also noted that Gardner stated that he did not know for sure why Wise had treated him differently.

The court rejected Gardner’s disparate-impact argument because he alleged only that he was treated differently from other students, such as receiving slower email responses. He did not allege that a racially neutral practice affected people of a particular race or ethnicity more severely than others.

The court also rejected Gardner’s Title VI retaliation theories. His inquiries about Harvard’s data-protection practices did not show that he opposed an unlawful practice, and he did not allege a causal connection between those inquiries and the defendants’ actions. The court further found that Gardner had not shown that his belief that Wise acted unlawfully was reasonable, as required for the communications with Wise to qualify as protected activity. Even assuming protected activity, he did not allege facts showing that it caused the defendants’ actions. The court stated that the record instead suggested that Gardner was reprimanded and removed because of inappropriate or excessive communications over time.

The court also rejected Gardner’s argument under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because he did not allege a constitutional-rights violation or show that race motivated the defendants’ conduct. The court noted that 18 U.S.C. § 241 does not provide a private cause of action.

Ruling

The court concluded that the complaint failed to satisfy basic pleading standards and failed to state a claim for relief. Because Gardner had not stated a legally sufficient claim, he also had not shown a likelihood of success required for a temporary restraining order.

Judge Tunheim ordered that Gardner’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was DENIED; his motion for a temporary restraining order was DENIED; his objections were OVERRULED; the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation was ADOPTED; and the action was DISMISSED without prejudice. The court explained that dismissal without prejudice allowed the case to be re-filed within a limited period if Gardner could correct the problems identified in the order.