Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LUNGSTRUM, District Judge. This is a race discrimination case arising out of plaintiffs employment with the Health Department of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff is an African American female who Contends that she was discriminated against and retaliated against by defendants in the course of her employment. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants, because of plaintiffs race, refused to increase plaintiffs salary to a competitive rate after she completed training through a federally funded program and obtained certification as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Plaintiff brings numerous claims against defendants, including: (1) a Title VII claim alleging discrimination and retaliation, (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim alleging discrimination and retaliation, (3) a Title VI claim alleging discrimination or retaliation in the application of a federally funded program, (4) a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim alleging conspiracy to discriminate on the basis of race, (5) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging denial of equal protection, (6) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging denial of procedural due process, and (7) a breach of contract or, alternatively, unjust enrichment claim. Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (Doc. 19). As set forth in more detail below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 35). Defendants’ sole objection to plaintiffs motion is that the proposed changes to her amended complaint are futile. Thus, the court will examine plaintiffs second amended complaint in considering defendants’ motion, and, to the extent that the second amended complaint is not futile, will grant plaintiff leave to amend. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) (“leave shall be freely given when justice so requires”); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (holding that the provision “leave shall be freely given” is a “mandate ... to be heeded”); Viernow v. Euripides Devel. Corp., 157 F.3d 785, 799 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that the decision to grant leave to amend a complaint lies within the sound discretion of the trial court). I. Background Plaintiff is an African American woman employed by the Health Department of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (Unified Government). She began working for the Health Department in 1996 as a Registered Nurse (RN). In April, 1997, plaintiff was approached by her supervisors and asked if she would be interested in enrolling in the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Plaintiff was informed that federal Title X funds would be used to pay for the program’s tuition fees and would also be used to pay her RN salary during the course of the program. After successful completion of the program and a preceptorship following the program, plaintiff would obtain certification as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP). Plaintiff was promised that upon obtaining certification she would receive a salary increase such that her salary would be competitive with other ARNPs in the Kansas City metropolitan area. In exchange for these benefits, plaintiff would be required to sign an agreement to work for the Health Department for two years after completing her preceptorship. Plaintiff accepted the offer and began the program. While plaintiff was performing her pre-ceptorship in the fall of 1997, the governments of Kansas City, Kansas and Wyan-dotte County, Kansas consolidated into the Unified Government. As a result of the consolidation, the Health Department, which had formerly been under the control of Wyandotte County, came under the authority of the Unified Government. Defendant Joseph Connor, the interim director of the Wyandotte County Health Department, continued to serve as the interim director of the Unified Government Health Department. Defendant Dennis Hayes, the former administrator for the city of Kansas City, Kansas, was appointed as the administrator of the Unified Government. In light of her impending certification, plaintiff informed Mr. Connor that she would be requesting an increase in her salary. Mr. Connor responded by informing plaintiff that there were no dollars budgeted for such an increase and asking plaintiff why she expected an increase when the Health Department had “sent her to school.” Plaintiff explained that a salary increase was part of the consideration for her agreement to work for the Health Department for two years following certification. The past participants of the ARNP training program, all white women, had received raises after they had completed the program and received certification. On April 17, 1998, plaintiff gave written notice to Mr. Connor that she had been certified as an ARNP. After consulting with Mr. Hayes, Mr. Connor mailed a letter to plaintiff detailing the economic benefit of the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners program to plaintiff and indicating that she would be responsible for reimbursing the Health Department for over $31,000 if she left her position before the expiration of two years. After receiving Mr. Connor’s letter, plaintiff filled out a Personal Action Form requesting a pay increase to the amount of $3,294 per month or $39,500 per year. Plaintiff based the specific amount of her request on a Wyandotte County Job Vacancy Announcement for August 26, 1996, which advertised the salary for an ARNP at “$3,294.00/Mo.” Plaintiff later learned that the competitive salary range for nurse practitioners in the Kansas City metropolitan area in April, 1998 was between $45,000 and $55,000. Mr. Connor submitted plaintiffs Personal Action Form to Mr. Hayes in late April, 1998. On June 25, 1998, Mr. Connor informed plaintiff that Mr. Hayes had denied her request for an immediate pay increase. Instead, Mr. Hayes had approved a raise to be given in three increments over a two year period. On June 26, 1998, plaintiff submitted a memorandum to Mr. Hayes, stating that she had been orally promised by Health Department officials in 1996 that her salary would increase to $40,000 per year upon completion of the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners program. She further stated that she considered the failure to immediately increase her salary a breach of contract with serious legal repercussions. Thereafter, plaintiff filed two grievances with the Unified Government, one alleging breach of contract and the other alleging discrimination and retaliation. In connection with those grievances, plaintiff substituted a “more realistic figure in line with comparables in the Kansas City area” for her initial request of a pay increase to $3,294 per month. Although Mr. Connor, Mr. Hayes, and others “failed to allow plaintiff Sims to pursue those grievances to their final stages,” and “engag[ed] in the mediation process in bad faith,” defendants unilaterally increased plaintiffs pay to the amount which she had originally requested, $3,294 per month. On October 9, 1998, plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and on October 15, 1998, plaintiff filed a charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission. In both charges, plaintiff alleged that she had been discriminated against and retaliated against because of her race. Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on June 10,1999. On November 19, 1999, when the Unified Government replaced its compensation program for a program assigning three salary ranges to each job classification, plaintiff was placed in the lowest salary range for her position, despite the fact that she had over one and one-half years experience as an ARNP. Plaintiff subsequently filed this suit on September 9,1999. II. Legal Standard A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) is governed by the same standards as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Mock v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co., 971 F.2d 522, 528 (10th Cir.1992). The court will dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim only when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the theory of recovery that would entitle him or her to relief, see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir.1998), or when an issue of law is dispositive. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, see Maher, 144 F.3d at 1304, and all reasonable inferences from those facts are viewed in favor of the plaintiff. See Witt v. Roadway Express, 136 F.3d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir.1998). The issue in resolving a motion such as this is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he or she is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (overruled on other grounds). In deciding a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court may generally not consider evidence outside the pleadings. See Prayer v. LaFaver, 180 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997)). Documents referred to in a plaintiffs complaint and central to her claim, however, are not considered “outside the pleadings.” Id. Defendants attach a number of documents to their motion for judgment on the pleadings. While the court has discretion to convert a Rule 12(c) motion into a motion for summary judgment in order to consider matters outside the pleadings, the court declines to do so here. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed before discovery had progressed to any tangible degree. The court finds it inappropriate to consider this case for summary judgment at this early stage. Therefore, of the documents attached to the parties’ papers, the court will only consider those referenced in plaintiffs amended complaint and central to her claims. III. Discussion Defendants present thirteen arguments as to why they should be awarded judgment on the pleadings in whole or in part. The court will begin by addressing five arguments which affect the majority of the counts brought in plaintiffs amended complaint. Then, the court will discuss the arguments that apply solely to particular counts brought by plaintiff. A. Broad-Reaching Arguments The court begins its analysis of defendants’ motion with a discussion of five arguments which are broad-reaching in scope. As set forth below, these arguments ultimately lead the court to conclude the following: first, that plaintiff must show cause why defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to maintaining this suit as a class action should not be granted; second, that the claims asserted against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their official capacity are duplicative and are dismissed; third, that plaintiff must amend her complaint if she wishes to bring claims against the Unified Government under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 or 1985; and fourth, that plaintiff may not recover punitive damages against the Unified Government. 1. Maintenance of this Suit as a Class Action Defendants’ first argument is that, based on the allegations in her amended complaint, plaintiff cannot possibly maintain this suit as a class action pursuant to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Plaintiff concedes that her Title VII claims cannot be the basis of a class action because she failed to include class allegations in the charge which she filed with the EEOC. See, e.g., Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 127 (7th Cir. 1989). As to her remaining claims, however, plaintiff asserts that defendants have “attempted to prematurely raise issues more properly considered on a motion for class certification.” (Doc. 34 at 47). The court agrees that the appropriate time to address whether a plaintiff has met the requirements necessary to maintain a class action is after the plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification, as stated in D.KarnR. 23.1(b). The court finds, however,. that plaintiff has not filed a timely motion for class certification. Therefore, the court orders that plaintiff show cause by August 31, 2000, why defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to maintaining this suit as a class action should not be granted. 2. Claims Asserted Against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their Official Capacities Defendants next argue that because plaintiff has sued the Unified Government directly, it is duplicative to sue Mr. Hayes, the Unified Government Administrator, and Mr. Connor, plaintiffs supervisor at the Health Department, in their official capacities. Plaintiff responds that governmental officials may be properly sued in their official capacities. While plaintiffs response is a correct statement, it does not address defendants’ concerns that naming Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor as defendants in their official capacities can afford plaintiff no additional relief because there is no distinction between these defendants in their official capacity and the Unified Government. The court agrees that the claims against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their official capacities are duplicative and should be dismissed. The Supreme Court has held that a suit brought against an individual in his official capacity is really “only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (quoting Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690, n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)). “As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Id. at 166, 106 S.Ct. 3099. When a plaintiff names both a municipality and a municipal officer in his official capacity as defendants in an action, the suit against the officer is redundant, confusing, and unnecessary and should be dismissed. See Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir.1991) (upholding dismissal of individual defendants sued in their official capacity in § 1983 case); Cleland v. City of Caney, No. 96-2338, 1997 WL 49136 (D.Kan. Jan. 24, 1997) (dismissing Title VII claim and § 1983 claim against individual defendants named in their official capacity); Doe v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 775 F.Supp. 1414, 1416 (D.Colo.1991) (“Although there is no Tenth Circuit decision on point, dismissal of plaintiffs redundant [§ 1983] claim is warranted as a matter of judicial economy and efficiency.”); Redpath v. City of Overland Park, 857 F.Supp. 1448, 1456 (D.Kan.1994) (“[W]here the employer has been sued directly, it is duplicative to sue the supervisory employees in their official capacities [in a Title VII case].”). Here, it is duplica-tive for plaintiff to sue both the Unified Government and Mr. Hayes and Mr. Con-nor in their official capacities. Therefore, the court enters judgment on the pleadings on all of plaintiffs claims against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their official capacities. 3. Qualified Immunity as it Applies to Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their Individual Capacities Defendants also attempt to have plaintiffs claims brought against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their individual capacities dismissed. They argue that Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor are qualified immune from suit. The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). It is well-settled that “[w]hen a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.” Greene v. Barrett, 174 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir.1999). Moreover, “[w]here a qualified immunity defense is asserted in a 12(b)(6) motion ... we apply a heightened pleading standard, requiring the complaint to contain specific, non-conclusory allegations of fact sufficient to allow the district court to determine that those facts, if proved, demonstrate that the actions taken were not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” Dill v. City of Edmond, 155 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted). While plaintiff agrees that the legal standards set forth above govern the court’s decision as to qualified immunity, she does not attempt to specifically address either of the two prongs. Rather, she invokes Tenth Circuit precedent which allows a plaintiff to amend her complaint after the qualified immunity defense is raised. See id. at 1204 (“After the defense is raised, Plaintiff may amend his complaint to include additional specific, nonconclusory allegations of fact sufficient to allow the district court to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”) (internal quotations omitted); Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 646 (10th Cir.1988) (“[O]nce the defense has been raised, the court must allow the plaintiff the limited opportunity ... to come forward with facts or allegations sufficient to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.”). Therefore, the court grants plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add specific, non-conclusory allegations demonstrating that Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor individually engaged in conduct that violated a clearly established law. Defendants’ motion as to qualified immunity is denied without prejudice; it may be reasserted following the filing of plaintiffs amended complaint. 4. Pleading Municipal Liability Against the Unified Government The fourth argument asserted by defendants effects the counts brought by plaintiff against the Unified Government pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. Defendants contend that plaintiff has made no allegations in her amended complaint which would be sufficient to give rise to municipal liability under these counts, and, thus, plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 claims against the Unified Government should be dismissed. A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. See Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1129 (10th Cir.1993). Rather, a municipality may generally only be held liable for the acts of an employee who posseses “final policymaking authority.” Jantz v. Muci, 976 F.2d 623, 630 (10th Cir.1992). An employee is a final policymaker when his decisions are not subject to review. Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 448 (10th Cir.1995). However, “lawfully empowered decisionmakers cannot insulate themselves from liability under section 1983 by knowingly allowing a subordinate to exercise final policymaking authority vested by law in the decisionmakers. This type of delegation arises when a subordinate’s decision is couched as a policy statement expressly approved by the poli-cymaking entity, or when the decision manifests a custom or usage of which the entity must have been aware.” Jantz, 976 F.2d at 631 (internal quotation and citations omitted). Plaintiff correctly states that the Supreme Court has rejected a heightened standard of pleading in claims against municipalities. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). A plaintiff is not required to specifically allege every element of her claim. See Parsons v. Board of County Comm’rs, 873 F.Supp. 542, 544 (D.Kan.1994); Gallardo v. Board of County Comm’rs, 857 F.Supp. 783, 787 (D.Kan. 1994). Nevertheless, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a), a plaintiff must make at least minimal factual allegations on every element. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). As stated above, conclusory allegations will not sustain a plaintiffs pleading burden. While plaintiff here comes close to meeting the Rule 8(a) pleading requirements, the court finds that her first amended complaint falls just short of stating a municipal liability claim. Plaintiff does not allege that a person with “final policymaking authority” discriminated or conspired against her on the basis of her race. She is not required to do so, however, if she pleads at least minimal factual allegations as to this element. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Connor and Mr. Hayes failed to allow her to pursue her grievances to their final stages. (Doc. 7, ¶ 42). This factual allegation could be interpreted to mean that the decisions of Mr. Connor and Mr. Hayes were not subject to review, as they alone could stop her claims filed with the Unified Government from proceeding. If this interpretation is proven true, Mr. Connor and Mr. Hayes would be considered policymakers and the Unified Government would be held hable for their actions. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that Mr. Connor told her that she would not receive a raise because “there were no dollars budgeted for any such salary increase.” (Doc. 7, ¶ 34). Read broadly, this allegation could imply that decision-making authority was delegated to Mr. Connor who used a policy approved by the Unified Government (a budget freeze) to discriminate. If plaintiff is able to prove such an allegation, the Unified Government would not be permitted to hide behind its delegation of power to Mr. Connor and would be liable. Finally, plaintiff makes the conelusory allegation that Mr. Hayes’ and Mr. Connor’s decision to deny her a raise was “totally consistent with the custom, practice, policy, or other action of the Unified Government.” (Doc. 7, ¶ 37). Again, if plaintiff were to set forth facts to support this statement, the Unified Government could be liable for a discriminatory custom of which it must have been aware. As the court has demonstrated, arguments can be made that plaintiff sufficiently pled factual allegations on the elements of municipal liability. The court finds, however, that these arguments require that one-too-many steps be taken to interpret what plaintiff “intended” to allege. See Gallardo, 857 F.Supp. at 787 (allegation that “the Board controlled all aspects of decisions to hire, fire, disciple (sic) and/or promote plaintiff’ not sufficient to allege that Board took final policy-making action). Therefore, the court will grant plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to more clearly allege facts which support her 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 claims against the Unified Government. 5. The Recovery of Punitive Damages Against the Unified Government In each count brought in her amended complaint, plaintiff prays that the court enter an award of punitive damages against defendants. Defendants contend that the court may' not grant plaintiffs prayer as to the Unified Government, however, as punitive damages are generally not recoverable against municipalities. See e.g., City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981); Beth v. Espy, 854 F.Supp. 735 (D.Kan.1994). Plaintiff concedes that “punitive damages are not available from the Unified Government on any of her claims in this action.” (Doc. 34, at 47). Thus, even if plaintiff sufficiently amends her complaint to allege municipal liability against the Unified Government, the only claims under which plaintiff could potentially recover punitive damages are those asserted against Mr. Connor and Mr. Hayes in their individual capacities- and then only if Mr. Hayes and Mr. Con-nor are not qualified immune from suit. B. Title VII Claims The first count of plaintiffs amended complaint alleges that defendants discriminated against her with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment because of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), et seq., or, in the alternative, retaliated against her for complaining of discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (Title VII claims). Defendants raise three arguments that plaintiffs Title VII claims should be dismissed, in whole or in part. As the discussion below evinces, plaintiff concedes that defendants’ first argument is correct and the court dismisses plaintiffs Title VII claims against My. Hayes and Mr. Connor in their individual capacities. The court finds defendants’ second argument correct in part and incorrect in part; plaintiff will not be permitted to use vague and conclusory allegations of “other” discrimination to support her Title VII claims, nor will she be permitted to support her Title VII discrimination claim with allegations that she was denied a “promotion” in November, 1999. Finally, the court rejects defendants’ third argument that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because defendant raises this argument prematurely. 1. Liability of Mr. Hayes and Mr. Con-nor in their Individual Capacities Defendants argue that Title VII cases cannot be brought against defendants in their individual capacities. See Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1125 (10th Cir.1993). Plaintiff concedes that such is the present state of the law in the Tenth Circuit and that, as a result, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor are not proper parties to her Title VII claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses plaintiffs Title VII claim against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor. 2. The Limitation of Plaintiffs Claim to the Allegations Set Forth in Her EEOC Charge Next, defendants maintain that under the so-called “exhaustion rule” plaintiffs Title VII claims must be limited to claims which she administratively asserted in her EEOC charge. The Tenth Circuit has adopted the rule, however, that in addition to the claims asserted in the administrative charge, a court may consider claims of discrimination that are “reasonably related” to the allegations in the charge. See Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1409 (10th Cir.1997) (citing Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 864 F.2d 680, 682 (10th Cir.1988)). Moreover, a court may consider “complaints not expressly included in an EEOC charge ... where the conduct alleged would fall within the scope of an EEOC investigation which would reasonably grow out of the charges actually made.” Martin v. Nannie And The Newborns, Inc., 3 F.3d 1410, 1416 n. 7 (10th Cir.1993). These rules are consistent with the purposes of the administrative filing requirement — to provide notice of the alleged violation to the charged party, and to provide the administrative agency with the opportunity to conciliate the claims. See Seymore v. Shawver & Sons, Inc., 111 F.3d 794, 799 (10th Cir.1997) (citing Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 126 (7th Cir.1989)). In her EEOC charge filed on October 10, 1998, plaintiff checked the boxes for racial discrimination and retaliation, and then set forth, in relevant part, the following allegations: In April, 1997, [members of the Health Department made Charging Party an offer] to attend the Women’s Health Care Advanced Nurse Practitioners program ... pursuant to the Family Planning Title X federally-funded program which had been utilized before with other nurse practitioners all of which were Anglo Saxon and all of which were provided a raise to a nurse practitioner’s salary upon completion of their certification. Charging Party accepted the offer made to her. On April 17, 1998, when Charging Party received notice of her Certification she provided such notice to Respondent Joe Connor and Respondent Unified Government rather than provide her with the raise she was to have received [sic], Mr. Connor responded by sending her the attached Memorandum and Economic Projections purportedly detailing the economic benefit to Charging Party of the training received and informing her that she would be responsible for reimbursing Respondents for the financial benefit she had received if she terminated her employment within the two-year period over which she had agreed to work for the Health Department. Respondents Connor and Unified Government forwarded such Memorandum to Charging Party at the same time as they grudgingly completed a Personal Action Form recommended [sic] a pay increase to the level of $3,294/month (a 1996 starting salary for nurse practitioners) to Respondent Dennis Hays, individually and as agent of Respondent Unified Government. On June 25, 1998, Charging Party was informed ... that Respondent Hays had denied Respondent Connor’s request for a pay increase. Charging Party has still not received a salary increase from the Registered Nurse level to .that applicable to an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner as of the date of this charge despite having accused Respondents of race discrimination in a Memorandum submitted June 26, 1998, and in formal grievance filed with Respondent on July 29, 1998. Respondents’ conduct towards Charging Party constitutes race discrimination and/or retaliation for complaining of race discrimination. Defendants argue that this charge is not reasonably related to the claims of discrimination asserted by plaintiff in paragraphs 3, 7, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, & 48 of her amended complaint. Many of these paragraphs, in whole or in part, discuss discrimination against African Americans as a class. Defendants assert that plaintiff can not sustain a class action based on Title VII because plaintiff did not include class allegations in her EEOC charge. In her response, plaintiff clarifies that she “is making no class allegations in Count I, which is her claim under Title VII.” (Doc. 34 at 27). Thus, no allegations of class discrimination will be allowed to be brought pursuant to plaintiffs Title VII claims. As to the remaining allegations in these paragraphs, plaintiff responds that the court should defer ruling as to their relatedness to the EEOC charge until the parties have engaged in discovery and until plaintiff has made a motion for class certification. As plaintiff concedes that her Title VII claims do not make class allegations, however, the court sees no value to deferring its decision until after plaintiff has moved for class certification. Moreover, plaintiff has not explained what value would be obtained by deciding the issue of administrative exhaustion after discovery has occurred and the court can find none. In fact, the court has routinely decided the issue on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Freeman v. Kansas, No. 97-2531-JWL, 1998 WL 259899 (D.Kan. April 10, 1998); Zinn v. McKune, 949 F.Supp. 1530 (D.Kan.1996); Aguirre v. McCaw RCC Communications, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1431 (D.Kan.1996). Accordingly, the court will now address whether the allegations of discrimination against plaintiff asserted in these paragraphs are reasonably related to the claims of discrimination in plaintiffs EEOC charge. In paragraph 3, plaintiff alleges that she was “subjected to deprivation of salary promised her in connection with the federally funded Family Planning Program encompassed by Title X through which defendant Unified Government received much of its funding, in effect denying her a promotion commensurate with her certification as an ... ARNP in an attempt to keep her at the employment level of Registered Nurse and who was otherwise discriminated against on the basis of her race or for complaining about such discrimination.” The first half of this allegation, that because of plaintiffs race defendants deprived her of a salary increase upon her certification as an ARNP, is the precise subject of her EEOC charge. The court finds it properly within the scope of plaintiffs Title VII claim. The second half of this allegation, that plaintiff was “otherwise discriminated against on the basis of her race,” may not be reasonably related to plaintiffs EEOC charge if it does not relate to defendant’s alleged failure to increase plaintiffs compensation upon her certification. Because the statement that she was “otherwise discriminated against” is vague and conclusory, the court is completely unable to determine whether or not such other discrimination was reasonably related to the administrative charges. In any event, the court will not consider this allegation as it fails to meet the pleading requirements set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires that a pleading set forth a “short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This rule requires that the pleading do more than simply make allegations, rather, the pleading must state the facts upon which the plaintiffs claim rests. See Williams v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 98-1417, 1999 WL 235930, at *1 (10th Cir. April 22, 1999); Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Labs., 630 F.2d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir.1980). See also Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir.1998) (on a motion to dismiss, the court only accepts as true well-pleaded facts, not conclusory allegations). Because plaintiff asserts no facts to support her allegation that plaintiff was “otherwise discriminated against,” this statement cannot be the basis of a Title VII claim. In paragraphs 37, 39, and 43, plaintiff alleges that racial stereotypes led to defendants’ refusal to increase her pay upon her advanced certification. Again, the court finds this an appropriate basis for plaintiffs Title VII claim as it speaks to the exact claim which was the subject of her EEOC charge. While paragraph 38 generally discusses class discrimination, which, as stated above, plaintiff has conceded does not apply to her Title VII claims, it also alleges that defendants have imposed “policies and procedures which have a disparate impact on African American, employees, including plaintiff.” To the extent that this statement is simply a reiteration of plaintiffs claims that, because of her race, she was thwarted in her attempts to receive a raise in her compensation following her certification as an ARNP, this allegation falls within the scope of plaintiffs EEOC charge and may be raised in her Title VII count. To the extent, however, that this statement was meant as a new allegation of discrimination, it is vague and eoncluso-ry and will not be considered. See discussion of ¶ 3 supra. In paragraph 44, plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated against her for complaining of discrimination in her grievance “by forcing her to work in situations from which white employees were exempted, [and] by discriminating against her by engaging in the mediation process in bad faith.” One could read plaintiffs allegation that she was forced “to work in situations from which white employees were exempted” as referring to the allegation raised in her EEOC charge that, unlike white employees who completed the Advanced Nurse Practitioners program, she did not receive a pay raise upon her certification. To the extent that plaintiff meant to refer to this allegation, her statement in paragraph 44 may be used to support her Title VII claim. On the other hand, one could read this same statement as another vague and conclusory allegation of some other type of discrimination. As discussed above, the court will not allow such conclu-sory statements to be read to assert a new claim under Title VII. See discussion of ¶ 3 supra. The'second part of plaintiffs allegation in paragraph 44, that defendants retaliated against her for complaining of discrimination by mediating in bad faith, is less conclusory. When read in context with the proceeding paragraphs, this statement alleges that defendants acted in bad faith when mediating the grievances which plaintiff had filed with the Unified Government seeking a salary increase. Although plaintiff never specifically mentioned bad-faith mediation in her EEOC charge, the court finds this allegation reasonably related to the allegations that defendants refused to increase plaintiffs salary “from the Registered Nurse level to that applicable to an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner.” See Witherspoon v. Roadway Express, Inc., 782 F.Supp. 567, 571-72 (D.Kan.1992) (claims of discriminatory discharge reasonably related to administrative charge of discriminatory promotion practices). Moreover, the bad faith mediation of plaintiffs salary-based grievances could reasonably have been expected to come to light in the EEOC’s investigation of plaintiffs charges. See Martin, 3 F.3d at 1416 n. 7 (claims of harassment by two co-employees would fall within the scope of an EEOC investigation into charges of harassment by supervisor, and thus were appropriate to support Title VII claim). Thus, the court finds that plaintiffs claims of bad-faith mediation may be used to support her Title VII claims. Finally, in paragraph 48 of her amended complaint, plaintiff states that defendants “discriminated against Plaintiff Sims in particular with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment relating to her salary and promotion.” (emphasis added). Plaintiffs use of the term “promotion” is problematic because plaintiff does not specifically contend that she was denied a promotion any place else in her complaint, nor in her EEOC charge. As discussed above, in paragraph 3 of her amended complaint plaintiff asserts that defendants’ failure to increase her salary following her certification in effect denied her a promotion. To the extent that plaintiff intended to convey the same idea in paragraph 48, the court finds the allegation sufficient to support plaintiffs Title VII discrimination claims. On the other hand, plaintiffs use of the term “promotion” in paragraph 48 could refer to the allegations in paragraph 45 of plaintiffs amended complaint that on November 19, 1999, when the Unified Government replaced its compensation program with a program assigning three salary ranges to each job classification, plaintiff was placed in the lowest salary range for her position, despite the fact that she had over one and one-half years experience as an ARNP. To the extent that plaintiff is referring in paragraph 48 to the events in 1999, the court finds that they cannot be the subject of her Title VII discrimination claims. First, plaintiff does not allege that her placement on the Unified Government’s new compensation scale was in any way related to the alleged events which occurred over a year earlier relating to defendants’ reluctance to give her a raise following her certification as an ARNP. The two claims arise from completely separate factual situations. C.f., Freeman v. Kansas, 97-2531-JWL, 1998 WL 259899 (D.Kan. April 10, 1998) (discriminatory discharge claim was reasonably related to racial harassment' claim where both claims arose “out of the same course of alleged conduct by the Defendant during a short period of time.”); Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1409-10 (10th Cir.1997) (hostile work environment claim not reasonably related to wrongful discharge claim contained in EEOC charge where claims based on different allegations of impermissible conduct); Cheek v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir.1994) (for claims to be reasonably related, EEOC charge and judicial complaint “must, at a minimum, describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals”) (cited with approval in Welsh v. City of Shawnee, No. 98-6243, 1999 WL 345597 (10th Cir. June 1, 1999)). Second, the events occurring in November of 1999 took place after the EEOC action was administratively terminated on June 10, 1999. See Dept, of Justice letter, Exh. C of Amended Comp. Although the Tenth Circuit has adopted the Second Circuit’s rule, set forth in Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc., 983 F.2d 1204, 1209 (2nd Cir.1993), that where a plaintiff alleges that a retaliatory action occurs after the filing of a charge with the EEOC the retaliatory action is reasonably related to the EEOC charge, see Seymore v. Shawver & Sons, Inc., 111 F.3d 794, 799 (10th Cir.1997), the Tenth Circuit has not adopted the same rule for claims of discrimination occurring after the termination of an EEOC investigation. The court notes that while plaintiff cannot base her Title VII discrimination claims on the placement of plaintiff on the Unified Government’s revised compensation scale (which conduct is unrelated to the discriminatory conduct alleged in her EEOC charge), plaintiff can base her Title VII retaliation claims on such conduct. 3. Whether Plaintiff has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted Defendants’ final argument attacking plaintiffs Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims is that plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Defendants’ motion discusses the evidence which a plaintiff is required to produce to meet the burden-shifting requirements set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Defendants’ reply states that “[b]eeause plaintiff has failed to present any evidence of pretext, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Doc. 41 at 12) (emphasis added). The court finds defendants’ argument premature at this juncture. Discovery which may enable plaintiff to meet her McDonnell Douglas burdens has not yet been completed. Moreover, as discussed in Section II above, the court does not consider evidence outside the pleadings when deeid-ing a 12(c) motion. Plaintiff has clearly pled the elements of a Title VII claim in her amended complaint, thus meeting her sole burden at this stage in the proceedings. The court denies defendants’ motion as to this issue. C. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Claim The second count brought by plaintiff seeks relief on the ground that defendants discriminated against her" on the basis of her race, or, alternatively, retaliated against her for complaining of discrimination on the basis of her race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Although defendants make no arguments which solely touch on plaintiffs § 1981 claims, the court nonetheless specifically addresses this claim in order to clarify a technical pleading issue which the parties have brought to its attention. Defendants note in their motion that authority exists to support the proposition that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive remedy for pursing damages against a municipality for claims arising under § 1981. Agreeing that the law is unsettled as to whether a § 1981 claim against a municipality may be brought as an independent claim, plaintiff responds that she is asserting her claim both under § 1981 and under § 1983. In any event, defendants point out that the issue “appears to be purely academic, as these claims are governed by the same legal standards regardless of whether they are pursued directly under § 1981 or indirectly through § 1983.” (Doc. 20 at 15). Academic or not, the court will rule on this issue for the sake of clarity. In Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 735, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that “the express ‘action at law’ provided by § 1983 for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,’ provides for the exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by § 1981 when the claim is pressed against a state actor.” While this ruling clearly states that § 1983 is the sole means for a plaintiff to pursue her § 1981 claim against a municipality, some courts have found that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 overruled Jett. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended § 1981 by adding subsection (c), which expressly provided recovery for violations of § 1981(a) “under color of state law.” This language, which mirrors language in § 1983, has led many courts to cursorily opine that since Congress borrowed the language from § 1983, Congress “presumably intended to borrow also the rules of municipal liability under § 1983.” Gallardo v. Board of County Comm’rs, 857 F.Supp. 783, 787 (D.Kan.1994). See also, La Compania Ocho, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 874 F.Supp. 1242, 1250 (D.N.M.1995); Morris v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 849 F.Supp. 1421, 1426 (D.Kan.1994); Arnett v. Davis County Sch. Dist., No. 92-C-988W, 1993 WL 434053 at *5 (D.Utah Apr.5, 1993); Ford v. City of Rockford, No. 88-C-20323, 1992 WL 309603 (N.D.Ill. Oct.15, 1992); Robinson v. Town of Colonie, 878 F.Supp. 387, 405 (N.D.N.Y.1995). Courts that have done a more complete analysis of the 1991 amendment, however, have held that Congress never intended to overrule Jett by adding subsection (c). Particularly relevant is the observation that, “[a]t no time in either the official summaries or in floor debate surrounding the enactment of subsection (c) did any congressperson mention Jett or the scope of municipal liability under Section 1981.” Philippeaux v. North Central Bronx Hosp., 871 F.Supp. 640, 655 (S.D.N.Y.1994). In fact, “[t]he legislative history of the Act mentions subsection (c) only briefly, and states that subsection (c) was added to reaffirm Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), which held that Section 1981 applied to nongovernmental entities.” Id. As many courts have noted, it is not logical to conclude that Congress overturned Jett by implication, while expressly codifying the holding of Runyon. See, Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville, 905 F.Supp. 993, 995 (N.D.Al.1995) (“Jett was not overruled by the addition of subsection (c) to § 1981 in the Civil Rights Act of 1991”); Johnson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 903 F.Supp. 1520, 1523 (S.D.Fl.1995) (“[S]ubsection (c) was intended to codify the Court’s holding in Runyon, ... not create a cause of action that did not previously exist”); Dennis v. County of Fairfax, 55 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir.1995); McPhaul v. Board of Comm’rs, 976 F.Supp. 1190, 1192-93 (S.D.Ind.1997); Wright v. North Carolina Dept. of Correction, No. 1:99CV230, 2000 WL 683160, at *17 (M.D.N.C. March 17, 2000); Johnakin v. City of Philadelphia, No. 95-1588, 1996 WL 18821, at *3-4 (E.D.Pa. Jan.18, 1996). The court finds this second line of cases better reasoned and more persuasive than the first. Thus, the court adopts the view that Jett’ s holding, to the effect that § 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for pursuing damages against a state actor for claims arising under § 1981, remains valid. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint to clarify that she is pursuing her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims, to the extent that they allege municipal liability, solely through the remedies provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. D. Title VI Claim The third claim made by plaintiff is that defendants violated her rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq, to be free from intentional discrimination “under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” see id. § 2000d. Defendants respond to this claim by asserting, first, that Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor cannot be held individually liable in a Title VI action. Plaintiff agrees and the court dismisses plaintiffs Title VI count against these defendants. Defendants then assert that the Unified Government is also an improper party to plaintiffs Title VI claim, as its status as a party is not supported by the allegations in plaintiffs amended complaint. As discussed below, the court denies defendants’ motion on this ground. 1. Liability of Mr. Hayes and Mr. Con-nor in their Individual Capacities Defendants argue that Title VI suits may only properly be brought against entities that receive federal funds, not against individual employees of such entities. See Jackson v. Katy Indep. Sch. District, 951 F.Supp. 1293 (S.D.Tex.1996). Plaintiff concedes that courts that have examined the issue unanimously hold that Title VI actions cannot be brought against individuals who are not federal funds recipients and that, as a result, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor are not proper parties to her Title VI claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses plaintiffs Title VI claim against Mr. Hayes and Mr. Connor. 2. The Unified Government as a Proper Party Plaintiffs Title VI count is specifically based on the allegation that defendants discriminated against her in her employment with the Family Planning Program, which receives federal Title X funds. Title VI prohibits discrimination based upon race, color or national origin in “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. As explained by the Tenth Circuit, the “prohibition extends to discrimination in employment by programs or activities that receive federal funding; however, covered entities can only be sued for employment discrimination ‘where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance to that program or activity is to provide employment.’ ” Reynolds v. School Dist. No. 1, 69 F.3d 1523, 1531 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3). In order to establish a Title VI violation in the employment context, then, a plaintiff must prove (1) that he or she has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, (2) that the entity engaging in discrimination is receiving federal financial assistance, and (3) that the primary purpose of the federal financial assistance is to provide employment. See Id.; see also Baker v. Board of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 631 (10th Cir.1993). Defendants contend that plaintiffs Title VI claim must be dismissed for two reasons: (1) because the Unified Government is not the actual recipient of the Title X funds and (2) because plaintiff fails to plead that the Title X funds were given primarily for the purpose of providing employment as required to establish Title VI coverage. The court will address these arguments in turn. While defendants’ first assertion that the Unified Government is not a “recipient of federal financial assistance,” as required by Title VI, may ultimately be proven true, it is simply not relevant at this juncture. In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that because of her race she was “subjected to deprivation of salary promised her in connection with the federally funded Family Planning Program encompassed by Title X through which defendant Unified Government received much of its funding.” (Doc. 7, ¶ 3). Accepting this allegation as true (as the court is compelled to do at this stage of the proceedings), the court concludes that plaintiff has adequately pled the “recipient” element (as well as the “discrimination” element) of a Title VI claim. See Quinn v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 97-C-3520, 1997 WL 790738, at *5 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 18, 1997) (where complaint simply alleged that defendant was “a recipient of federal financial assistance,” allegations were sufficient to state a claim under Title VI; court denied defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion). Moreover, the vast majority of courts faced with the issue of whether an entity receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of the civil rights laws have concluded that the resolution of the issue requires inquiry into factual matters outside the complaint and, accordingly, is a matter better suited for resolution after both sides have conducted discovery on the issue. See, e.g., Shepherd v. United States Olympic Comm., 94 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1146-47 (D.Colo.2000) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowing plaintiff the benefit of discovery on the issue of whether defendant receives federal financial assistance sufficient to trigger section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act); Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 26 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1008 (W.D.Mich.1998) (plaintiffs entitled to discovery on issue of whether defendant receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of Title IX); Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 9 F.Supp.2d 460, 492 (D.N.J.1998) (plaintiff entitled to discovery on the nature of federal contracts and existence of any subsidies); Gazouski v. City of Belvidere, No. 93-C-20157, 1993 WL 515858, at *3 (N.D.Ill.Dec.13, 1993) (determination of whether defendant receives federal financial assistance is “better suited for resolution after both sides have had time for discovery on the issue”); Gonzalez v. Development Assistance Corp., No. 88-0191-LFO, 1989 WL 205634, at *3 (D.D.C. June 21, 1989) (plaintiff entitled to discovery on issue of whether defendant, at the relevant time, was a recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of section 504); Bellamy v. Roadway Express, Inc., 668 F.Supp. 615, 618 (N.D.Ohio 1987) (question of whether entity receives federal financial assistance “ordinarily cannot be resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings”); see also Squire v. United Airlines, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 1004, 1009 (D.Colo.1997) (characterizing as “sound” plaintiffs’ argument that they should be allowed to conduct discovery on the issue of whether defendant received federal financial assistance for purposes of section 504, but granting summary judgment to defendant on separate ground in any event). For the foregoing reasons, the court rejects defendants’ first argument for dismissal on the ground that the Unified Government is not the actual recipient of the Title X funds. The court gives very little additional weight to defendants’ second argument that plaintiffs Title VI claim must be dismissed because plaintiff fails to plead that the Title X funds were given for the “primary purpose” of providing employment. While plaintiff correctly points out that Reynolds was decided on a motion for summary judgment and only sets forth the elements which a plaintiff must ultimately prove, as opposed to plead, the case upon which the Reynolds court relied examined the pleading requirements for a Title VI claim in the employment context. See Rosario-Olmedo v. Community Sch. Bd., 756 F.Supp. 95, 97 (E.D.N.Y.1991). In Rosario-Olmedo the court dismissed the plaintiffs Title VI claim because it failed to allege the “receipt of federal funds, their use, and whether their primary purpose is employment.” Id. Other courts that have examined Title VI pleading requirements in the employment discrimination context have also held that a plaintiff must allege that the primary purpose of the federal funding was to provide employment. See Weir v. Broadnax, No. 89 Civ. 7446, 1990 WL 195841 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.26, 1990); Richards v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 572 F.Supp. 1168, 1175 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Clark v. Louisa County Sch. Bd., 472 F.Supp. 321, 323 (E.D.Va.1979). The court concludes that the “primary purpose” element of a Title VI claim requires plaintiff to plead factual allegations which would support this element. The court’s conclusion as to this pleading requirement, however, actually has very little effect on the court’s ultimate conclusion on this issue, because the court finds that plaintiff has adequately met the pleading requirement. Plaintiff asserts in her amended complaint that the federal Title X funds “were provided for the purpose of facilitating employment.” (Doc. 7, ¶ 60). Although plaintiff does not specifically use the word “primary” in her complaint, the court finds that plaintiff has met the liberal pleading standards which apply when a motion for judgment on the pleadings is brought. A reasonable inference from plaintiffs allegation is that “the purpose” means “the only purpose.” If something is the only purpose, it logically must be the primary purpose. The court will dismiss a cause of action only when the plaintiff has pled no facts in support of the theory of recovery that would entitle him or her to relief. Here, the court concludes that plaintiff has adequately pled facts to support her Title VI claim. Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of discovery on the issue of whether the Unified Government is a recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of Title VI. Thus, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss the Title VI claims against the Unified Government. E. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Claims Following her Title VI count, plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, alleging that defendants conspired to discriminate against her on the basis of race, thereby violating her rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff asserts her § 1985 claims in her amended complaint, but then changes her assertion slightly in her proposed second amended complaint. As discussed above, the court will consider plaintiffs second amended complaint to the extent that the amendments are not futile. Although plaintiff does not specify in either complaint the sub-sections of § 1985 that she is proceeding under, plaintiff concedes in her response brief (Doc. 34 at 27-31) that she is entitled to remedies solely under subsections (2) and (3). Defendants raise two arguments in their motion with respect to plaintiffs § 1985 claims. As the analysis below explains, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a subsection (2) claim, but has adequately pled a subsection (3) claim; and that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not bar plaintiffs § 1985 claims. 1. Pleading Requirements to Support a Conspiracy Allegation Defendants’ first articulated reason for dismissing plaintiffs § 1985 claims is that plaintiff fails to plead facts that would support her claims. As to plaintiffs subsection (2) claim, defendants maintain that subsection (2) only provides a remedy to a plaintiff who has been retaliated against for her involvement in a court proceeding. Plaintiff does not allege that defendants conspired against her for her involvement in a court proceeding; rather, she asserts that defendants retaliated against her “for complaining of such discrimination in her grievances and in her charges of retaliation.” (Doc. 35, ¶ 44). Thus, to the extent that it is brought under subsection (2), plaintiffs § 1985 claim must be dismissed. The court agrees. The second clause of § 1985(2), the clause upon which plaintiff relies (Doc. 34 at 28), provides a cause of action where: two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons,- to the equal protection of the laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); see also, Wright v. No. Skiter, Inc., 774 F.2d 422, 425 (10th Cir.1985) (dividing subsection (2) into separate causes of action). The Supreme Court interpreted this clause of § 1985(2) in a 1983 opinion. In Kush v. Rutledge, the Court examined the legislative history of § 1985. 460 U.S. 719, 725, 103 S.Ct. 1483, 75 L.Ed.2d 413 (1983). The section was originally enacted as § 2 of the -Civil Rights Act of 1871, which proscribed, in relevant part, conspiracies that interfere with the administration of justice in state courts. Finding that Congress did not intend to change the substantive meaning of the 1871 Act upon reclassifying the section as 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the Court held that the “second part of § 1985(2) applies to conspiracies to obstruct the course of justice in state courts.” Kush, 460 U.S. at 725, 103 S.Ct. 1483. Significantly, virtually all lower courts that have examined the clause have also limited the scope of subsection (2) to court proceedings