Bettie Pullen-Walker v. Roosevelt University ( 2010 )

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION
Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith
ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1
United States Court of Appeals
ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit
Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604
SubmittedȱDecemberȱ16,ȱ2010*
DecidedȱDecemberȱ16,ȱ2010
Before
JOHNȱL.ȱCOFFEY,ȱCircuitȱJudge
JOELȱM.ȱFLAUM,ȱCircuitȱJudge
ANNȱCLAIREȱWILLIAMS,ȱCircuitȱJudge
No.ȱ10Ȭ2150
AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱ
BETTIEȱPULLENȬWALKER, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,
PlaintiffȬAppellant, EasternȱDivision.
v. No.ȱ09ȱCȱ5426
ROOSEVELTȱUNIVERSITY,ȱetȱal., JohnȱW.ȱDarrah,ȱ
DefendantsȬAppellees. Judge.
OȱRȱDȱEȱR
BettieȱPullenȬWalkerȱfiledȱthisȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱsuitȱagainstȱRooseveltȱUniversity,
theȱuniversity’sȱBoardȱofȱTrustees,ȱandȱseveralȱofȱitsȱcurrentȱandȱformerȱemployees.ȱȱPullenȬ
Walkerȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱdefendantsȱbreachedȱanȱimpliedȱcontractȱgoverningȱtheȱtermsȱofȱher
enrollmentȱwhenȱtheȱuniversityȱexpelledȱherȱfromȱaȱdoctoralȱprogramȱinȱ2001.ȱȱHerȱlatest
action,ȱtheȱseventhȱinȱaȱseriesȱofȱsuitsȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱexpulsion,ȱwasȱbroughtȱinȱstateȱcourt
butȱremovedȱbyȱtheȱdefendantsȱonȱtheȱassertedȱbasisȱthatȱitȱstatesȱaȱfederalȱclaimȱunderȱTitle
*
Afterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱis
unnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.
34(a)(2)(C).
No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 Pageȱ2
IXȱofȱtheȱEducationȱAmendmentȱActȱofȱ1972,ȱseeȱ20ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1681(a).ȱȱTheȱdefendantsȱthen
movedȱtoȱdismissȱtheȱcomplaintȱonȱtheȱgroundȱofȱclaimȱpreclusion.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourt
grantedȱtheȱmotion,ȱandȱPullenȬWalkerȱappeals,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱdefendantsȱimproperly
removedȱtheȱsuit.ȱ
PullenȬWalkerȱfashionedȱherȱcomplaintȱasȱaȱ“refiling”ȱofȱaȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱaction
sheȱbroughtȱinȱstateȱcourtȱagainstȱtheȱsameȱdefendantsȱinȱ2005.ȱȱTheȱdefendantsȱhad
removedȱthatȱcase,ȱtoo,ȱbutȱafterȱconcludingȱthatȱtheȱcomplaintȱraisedȱnoȱfederalȱquestion,
theȱdistrictȱcourtȱremandedȱtheȱsuitȱtoȱstateȱcourt,ȱwhereȱPullenȬWalkerȱvoluntarily
dismissedȱit.ȱȱTheȱcurrentȱcomplaint,ȱcaptionedȱ“Plaintiff’sȱcomplaintȱfiledȱwithinȱoneȱyear
ofȱvoluntaryȱdismissal,”ȱisȱPullenȬWalker’sȱattemptȱtoȱresurrectȱherȱ2005ȱcase;ȱitȱusesȱthe
sameȱcaseȱnumberȱasȱtheȱ2005ȱcomplaint,ȱandȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱitsȱ15ȱpagesȱallegesȱthe
sameȱfactualȱdetailsȱandȱlegalȱtheories,ȱwhichȱboilȱdownȱtoȱaȱclaimȱthatȱPullenȬWalkerȱwas
deniedȱtheȱbenefitsȱofȱanȱimpliedȱcontractȱwhenȱtheȱuniversityȱexpelledȱherȱonȱfalseȱcharges,
afterȱaȱshamȱinvestigation,ȱandȱinȱviolationȱofȱitsȱownȱpolicies.ȱȱTheȱcomplaintȱidentifiesȱtwo
Illinoisȱstatutesȱasȱprovidingȱaȱcauseȱofȱaction,ȱseeȱ735ȱILL.ȱCOMP.ȱSTAT.ȱ5/13Ȭ207;ȱ815ȱILL.
COMP.ȱSTAT.ȱ505/1,ȱandȱrefersȱrepeatedlyȱtoȱIllinoisȱcontractȱlawȱand,ȱmoreȱbroadly,ȱthe
contractualȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱaȱuniversityȱandȱitsȱstudents.ȱȱTheȱonlyȱreferenceȱtoȱfederal
lawȱcomesȱonȱpageȱeight,ȱandȱreadsȱasȱfollows:
Congressȱenactedȱlegislationȱ(1972)ȱforȱprotectionȱofȱstudentsȱrightsȱin
educationȱacrossȱlevelsȱthatȱrequiresȱinstitutionsȱtoȱabideȱbyȱtheȱpolicyȱor
standardsȱtheyȱthemselvesȱestablish.ȱȱThisȱmandateȱdiffersȱfromȱtheȱSupreme
Courtȱrulingȱwhichȱonlyȱaddressesȱtheȱrightsȱofȱwomenȱinȱeducation.ȱȱThe
enactmentȱbyȱCongressȱstatesȱinȱrelevantȱpart:
NoȱpersonȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱshallȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱsexȱbe
excludedȱfromȱparticipationȱin,ȱbeȱdeniedȱtheȱbenefitsȱof,ȱorȱbe
subjectedȱtoȱdiscriminationȱunderȱanyȱeducationȱprogramȱor
activityȱreceivingȱfederalȱassistance.ȱȱ20ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1681ȱetȱseq.ȱȱ
20.ȱȱAlwaysȱfacingȱtheȱvagariesȱofȱsocietyȱbasedȱonȱgender,ȱrace,ȱandȱage,ȱthe
plaintiffȱhasȱpersistedȱinȱthisȱlegislationȱwithȱfaithȱthatȱthisȱidealȱwillȱstand,
andȱtoȱpreserveȱaȱcherishedȱlegacyȱasȱanȱalumnaeȱofȱtheȱuniversity.ȱȱThe
plaintiffȱhasȱenduredȱwithȱfaithȱthatȱjusticeȱwillȱprevail.
Onȱtheȱbasisȱofȱthisȱlanguageȱalone,ȱtheȱdefendantsȱremovedȱtheȱactionȱtoȱdistrict
court.ȱȱTheȱnoticeȱofȱremovalȱassertsȱthatȱPullenȬWalkerȱclaimsȱdiscriminatoryȱexpulsion
underȱ20ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1681(a).ȱȱPullenȬWalkerȱdisputedȱthatȱcontentionȱinȱaȱmotionȱtoȱremand,
whichȱsheȱmislabeledȱasȱaȱ“motionȱtoȱanswerȱdefendants’ȱreply.”ȱȱSheȱexplainedȱthatȱshe
No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 Pageȱ3
meantȱforȱherȱsuitȱtoȱbeȱaȱrefilingȱofȱherȱ2005ȱcomplaint,ȱwhichȱraisesȱnoȱfederalȱissue,ȱonlyȱa
stateȬlawȱcontractȱclaim.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱgrantedȱtheȱmotionȱinȱaȱbriefȱminuteȱorder
withoutȱmentioningȱsubjectȬmatterȱjurisdictionȱorȱgivingȱeffectȱtoȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱthe
document,ȱwhichȱconcludesȱwithȱPullenȬWalker’sȱrequestȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱ“grant
Remand”ȱtoȱtheȱstateȱcourt.ȱȱInȱaȱlaterȱdecisionȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱaddressedȱtheȱmeritsȱand
grantedȱtheȱdefendants’ȱmotionȱtoȱdismissȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱresȱjudicata.ȱ
PullenȬWalkerȱmaintainsȱonȱappealȱthatȱherȱcaseȱbelongsȱinȱstateȱcourt.ȱȱAlthough
sheȱadmitsȱtoȱraisingȱTitleȱIXȱclaimsȱinȱpreviousȱsuits,ȱsheȱinsistsȱthatȱthisȱactionȱinvolvesȱno
federalȱquestion,ȱandȱisȱsimplyȱaȱrefilingȱofȱherȱ2005ȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱclaim,ȱwhich,ȱshe
notes,ȱwasȱdeemedȱbyȱaȱfederalȱcourtȱtoȱsoundȱonlyȱinȱstateȱlaw.ȱ
Congressȱauthorizesȱtheȱremovalȱofȱanyȱcivilȱactionȱbroughtȱinȱstateȱcourtȱoverȱwhich
federalȱcourtsȱhaveȱoriginalȱjurisdiction.ȱȱSeeȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1441(a);ȱHukicȱv.ȱAuroraȱLoanȱServ.,
588ȱF.3dȱ420,ȱ427ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱWhenȱtheȱassertedȱbasisȱofȱremovalȱisȱaȱfederalȱquestion,
28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1331,ȱtheȱcomplaintȱmustȱestablishȱthatȱfederalȱlawȱcreatesȱaȱrightȱtoȱreliefȱorȱthat
aȱrightȱtoȱreliefȱturnsȱonȱtheȱresolutionȱofȱaȱfederalȱquestion.ȱȱSeeȱFranchiseȱTaxȱBd.ȱv.ȱConstr.
LaborersȱVacationȱTrust,ȱ463ȱU.S.ȱ1,ȱ10Ȭ11ȱ(1983);ȱHartȱv.ȱWalȬMartȱStores,ȱInc.,ȱAssoc.ȱHealth
andȱWelfareȱPlan,ȱ360ȱF.3dȱ674,ȱ678ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2004).ȱȱTheȱfederalȱgroundȱassertedȱtoȱestablish
jurisdictionȱmustȱbeȱmoreȱthanȱincidentalȱtoȱaȱstateȬlawȱclaim,ȱseeȱTheȱFairȱv.ȱKohlerȱDieȱ&
SpecialtyȱCo.,ȱ228ȱU.S.ȱ22,ȱ25ȱ(1913);ȱJohnsonȱv.ȱOrr,ȱ551ȱF.3dȱ564,ȱ570ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008);ȱWilliams
v.ȱAztarȱIndianaȱGamingȱCorp.,ȱ351ȱF.3dȱ294,ȱ298ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2003),ȱandȱtheȱincantationȱofȱa
federalȱstatuteȱwillȱnotȱautomaticallyȱtriggerȱfederalȱjurisdiction,ȱseeȱHoweryȱv.ȱAllstateȱIns.
Co.,ȱ243ȱF.3dȱ912,ȱ917Ȭ18ȱ(5thȱCir.ȱ2001);ȱRainsȱv.ȱCriterionȱSys.,ȱInc.,ȱ80ȱF.3dȱ339,ȱ343Ȭ44ȱ(9th
Cir.ȱ1996).ȱȱ
TheȱremovalȱofȱPullenȬWalker’sȱcomplaintȱwasȱimproper,ȱandȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱerred
inȱnotȱremandingȱtheȱlawsuitȱtoȱstateȱcourt.ȱȱAȱreasonableȱreadingȱofȱtheȱcomplaintȱconfirms
thatȱthisȱisȱaȱcontractȱdisputeȱwithȱnoȱbasisȱinȱfederalȱlaw.ȱȱTheȱcomplaintȱisȱdevoted
exclusivelyȱtoȱtheȱfactualȱdetailsȱsurroundingȱtheȱallegedȱbreach:ȱtheȱmanufactured
violationsȱofȱtheȱconductȱcode,ȱtheȱshamȱinvestigation,ȱtheȱarbitraryȱexpulsion.ȱȱTheȱbreachȬ
ofȬcontractȱclaimȱneitherȱincorporatesȱanȱelementȱofȱfederalȱlawȱnorȱturnsȱonȱtheȱresolution
ofȱaȱfederalȱquestion.ȱȱTheȱmentionȱofȱTitleȱIXȱisȱfleeting,ȱvague,ȱandȱuntetheredȱfromȱfacts
thatȱcouldȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱofȱdiscrimination.ȱȱAtȱmostȱtheȱreferenceȱisȱanȱappealȱtoȱpublicȬ
policyȱprinciplesȱembodiedȱbyȱtheȱstatute,ȱbutȱthatȱisȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱinvokingȱtheȱprovision
asȱaȱrightȱtoȱrelief.ȱȱSeeȱRains,ȱ80ȱF.3dȱatȱ343Ȭ44ȱ(explainingȱthatȱcomplaintȱdrawingȱon
federalȱstatuteȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱpublicȱpolicyȱdidȱnotȱraiseȱfederalȱquestion).ȱȱ
HadȱPullenȬWalkerȱraisedȱaȱfederalȱissue,ȱherȱcomplaintȱpresumablyȱwouldȱhave
boreȱcloserȱresemblanceȱtoȱherȱtwoȱpreviousȱTitleȱIXȱclaims,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfederalȱquestion
No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 Pageȱ4
wasȱconspicuousȱandȱwellȱpleaded.ȱȱForȱinstance,ȱherȱfifthȱsuit,ȱaȱfiveȬcountȱcomplaintȱfiled
inȱfederalȱcourtȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱcounsel,ȱassertsȱearlyȱonȱthatȱtheȱsuitȱseeksȱreliefȱunderȱTitle
IXȱforȱdiscriminatoryȱexpulsion,ȱandȱidentifiesȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱcountsȱ“violationȱofȱTitleȱIX.”ȱ
Complaintȱatȱ15,ȱPullenȬWalkerȱv.ȱRooseveltȱUniv.,ȱ2006ȱWLȱ1843364ȱ(N.D.ȱIll.ȱJuneȱ28,ȱ2006).ȱ
Likewiseȱwithȱherȱsixthȱsuit,ȱaȱproȱseȱactionȱfiledȱinȱfederalȱcourt,ȱwhichȱassertsȱthatȱ“the
federalȱquestionȱarisesȱinȱthisȱcaseȱagainstȱdiscriminationȱbyȱRooseveltȱUniversity,”ȱand
goesȱonȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱciteȱTitleȱIX,ȱbutȱtoȱallegeȱfactsȱsupportingȱaȱviolationȱofȱtheȱstatute,
specificallyȱ“discriminationȱbasedȱonȱsexȱjustifiedȱbyȱmanufacturingȱaȱfalseȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsexist
charge.”ȱȱComplaintȱatȱ2,ȱPullenȬWalkerȱv.ȱRooseveltȱUniv.,ȱNo.ȱ08ȱCȱȱ2299,ȱ(N.D.ȱIll.ȱMayȱ8,
2008).ȱȱContrastȱtheȱcomplaintȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱwhichȱfocusesȱexclusivelyȱonȱherȱcontractual
relationshipȱwithȱtheȱuniversity,ȱwhichȱcontainsȱonlyȱaȱpassingȱreferenceȱtoȱTitleȱIX,ȱand
whichȱfailsȱtoȱdrawȱaȱnexusȱbetweenȱtheȱfederalȱstatuteȱandȱanȱallegationȱofȱdiscrimination.ȱ
WeȱVACATEȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱandȱREMANDȱwithȱinstructionsȱthat
theȱcaseȱbeȱremandedȱtoȱstateȱcourt.ȱ
ȱ