The University of Michigan had filed a motion to dismiss many of the causes of action against the University for sexual harassment and retaliation. They also requested that two defendants be dismissed because they were not properly served with the lawsuit in their individual capacities. Those defendants were Ms. Dibbern’s faculty advisor, Rachel Goldman and the Chair of her Dept. of Material Sciences and Engineering, Peter Green. The Court denied the University’s motions on all counts and granted Ms. Dibbern’s attorney 60 days to serve defendants Goldman and Green[1].
In a motion to dismiss, the court must assume that the facts are true in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In this case the court found that if Ms. Dibbern can prove the facts that she has stated, she can prevail in each of the causes of action that she has stated.
The University argued that many of the claims made by Ms. Dibbern were barred because they occurred before December 21, 2009 and were beyond the statute of limitation. The court found that Ms. Dibbern alleged a continuing pattern of facts that extended well after December 21, 2009.
The University also argued that because of the passage of time, the plaintiff could not prove causality between her protected activities and her dismissal. The court found that, assuming Ms. Dibbern could prove her facts, that there was sufficient evidence to corroborate causality other than proximity in time.
The University also argued that Ms. Dibbern did not state sufficient facts to support some of her causes of action, however, the court disagreed.
It is interesting that the court cited in several incidences, a case that the University of Michigan lost to a former student in the School of Dentistry, Zwick vs. University of Michigan, 2008[2]
With regard to the improper service of defendants Goldman and Green, the court found that Ms. Dibbern’s attorneys had good cause to believe that by serving the defendants through the University General Counsel, they had been properly served. The court granted the attorney an additional 60 days to serve those defendants.
[1] Opinion denying motion to dismiss
In a motion to dismiss, the court must assume that the facts are true in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In this case the court found that if Ms. Dibbern can prove the facts that she has stated, she can prevail in each of the causes of action that she has stated.
The University argued that many of the claims made by Ms. Dibbern were barred because they occurred before December 21, 2009 and were beyond the statute of limitation. The court found that Ms. Dibbern alleged a continuing pattern of facts that extended well after December 21, 2009.
The University also argued that because of the passage of time, the plaintiff could not prove causality between her protected activities and her dismissal. The court found that, assuming Ms. Dibbern could prove her facts, that there was sufficient evidence to corroborate causality other than proximity in time.
The University also argued that Ms. Dibbern did not state sufficient facts to support some of her causes of action, however, the court disagreed.
It is interesting that the court cited in several incidences, a case that the University of Michigan lost to a former student in the School of Dentistry, Zwick vs. University of Michigan, 2008[2]
With regard to the improper service of defendants Goldman and Green, the court found that Ms. Dibbern’s attorneys had good cause to believe that by serving the defendants through the University General Counsel, they had been properly served. The court granted the attorney an additional 60 days to serve those defendants.
[1] Opinion denying motion to dismiss
| 36__opinion_denying_mtn_to_dismiss_granting_mtn_to_serve_summons.pdf |
RSS Feed
