Varlesi v. Wayne State University (909 F. Supp. 2d 827, 2012)

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT THE SALVATION ARMY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT JOYCE STEFANSKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, CAROL PREMO, ANWAR NAJOR-DURACK, PHYLIS I. VROOM, SHAWNA J. LEE, MARGARET BRUNHOFER, AND ANTONIO GONZALES-PRENDES

MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Tina M. Varlesi, a former graduate student enrolled at Wayne State University’s School of Social Work, alleges that she was unlawfully dismissed from the program because she was unwed and pregnant. Defendants are: (1) Wayne State University (WSU), (2) Carol Premo, (3) Anwar Najor-Durack, (4) Phyllis I. Vroom, (5) Shawna J. Lee, (6) Antonio GonzalesPrendes, (7) Margaret Brunhofer, (8) The Salvation Army (SA), and (9) Joyce Stefan-ski. Defendants (2) through (7) are faculty at WSU. Defendant (9) is an employee of SA, one of the entities at which Plaintiff performed her field placement internship.

Plaintiff asserts seven claims in her Second Amended Complaint:

Count I: Sex, pregnancy, and marital-status discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Title IX). Plaintiff also mentions sexual harassment in this count. This count is asserted against WSU, SA, Premo, Du-rack, and Vroom.

Count II: Retaliation in violation of Title IX. This claim is asserted against WSU, SA, Premo, Durack, and Vroom.

Count III: Sex, pregnancy, and marital-status discrimination in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. (ELCRA). This count is asserted against Premo, Durack, and Vroom.

Count IV: Sex, pregnancy, and marital-status discrimination in violation of the ELCRA. This count is asserted against SA and Stefanski.

Count V: Retaliation in violation of the ELCRA. This count is asserted against Premo, Durack, Vroom, SA, and Stefan-ski.

Count VI: Substantive and procedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This count is asserted against Premo, Durack, Vroom, Lee, Prendes, and Brunhofer.

Count VII: Tortious interference with a contractual relationship and tortious interference with a business expectancy. This count is asserted against Stefanski.

Now before the Court are three defense motions for summary judgment: one each by SA (Dkt. 54) and Stefanski (Dkt. 55), and one by WSU, Premo, Durack, Vroom, Lee, Brunhofer, and Prendes (Dkt. 56). All three motions are fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on December 15, 2011. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the first two motions in their entirety and grant in part and deny in part the motion of the WSU Defendants.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff began as a Master’s degree student at WSU’s School of Social Work (MSW) in the fall of 2006. WSU Statement of Material & Undisputed Facts (WSU Fact) # 1. The two-year program is designed to prepare students for an advanced-level professional social work practice. WSU Fact # 3. To successfully complete the program, students must complete academic coursework and sixteen credit hours (225 hours) of field placement. WSU Fact # 4. According to WSU’s Field Education Manual, the field work component “helps student integrate classroom learning and reinforce course content.” PI. Ex. B at 10. Plaintiff excelled academically, earning a 3.67 grade point average. PI. Ex. F; Statement of Additional Material Facts (PI. Fact) #28. She also successfully performed her field placement requirement at Spectrum Human Services, a child welfare agency, during her first year of the program, earning strong performance reviews from her field supervisors. PI. Exs. G & H; PI. Facts ## 16-27.

During the first semester of her second year, Plaintiff was first placed at the Veterans Administration Hospital (VA) to complete her field work. WSU Fact # 33. Defendants say that Plaintiff was “terminated” from this assignment due to performance issues. Plaintiff says that she “refused to return” to the VA. WSU Facts ## 47-48; PI. Fact # 64. Regardless, the record reflects that Plaintiff did not perform adequately while at the VA in the opinion of her supervisor, Pamela Mackey. PI. Ex. 11. Mackey, a clinical social worker at the VA and Plaintiffs field supervisor, wrote a detailed letter to WSU in which she expressed “very serious concerns about [Plaintiffs] work ethic, values, and goals.” WSU Ex. 11. In the letter, Mackey states that she requested from WSU that Plaintiff “not be allowed to return [to work at the VA].” Id. In addition, Mackey submitted an evaluation of Plaintiff to WSU, in which Mackey assigned “does not meet” ratings in approximately 30 of 53 categories. PI. Ex. 11. Plaintiff received “marginal” ratings in the bulk of the remaining categories. Id.

Early during her placement at the VA— on September 24, 2007- — Plaintiff learned that she was pregnant. Plaintiff immediately informed Premo (her faculty advisor) and Mackey. WSU Fact # 37.

Plaintiff was originally given a grade of “incomplete” for her VA internship, but Premo later decided to give Plaintiff “an: other chance” and changed the grade to “satisfactory.” WSU Facts ## 26, 64. Premo testified that she could not justify failing Plaintiff because she could not discern whether Plaintiffs poor evaluation was the result of incompetence/inability or simply a poor working relationship with Mackey. Premo Dep. at 96. Premo knew that Plaintiff was pregnant when she elected not to fail her. WSU Fact # 58.

For her final field internship, Plaintiff was assigned to SA and, specifically, the Romulus Adult Rehabilitation Center (RARC), an in-house residential and rehabilitation center for men with substance abuse problems. PI. Fact # 82. The following facts about SA and RARC are pertinent:

• SA is an international, non-profit, religious, charitable organization, and has been recognized, for all purposes, as a church. Higgins Aff. ¶ 2. Its mission statement is as follows:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church.

Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

PI. Ex. B.

• SA operates many religious and charitable units, including Harbor Light Centers, Corps Community Centers, senior citizen centers and clubs, camps, children day-care centers, temporary housing, and Adult Rehabilitation Centers (ARCs). Higgins Aff. ¶ 3.

• ARCs constitute the principal means whereby SA practices its religion in the rehabilitation of “spiritually and socially handicapped individuals” through a residential program of religious teaching, counseling, and work therapy. Each ARC is a self-contained religious community with living quarters for residents, known as “beneficiaries,” as well as a chapel, a dining room, and a recreation room. The main purpose of ARCs is to “provide spiritual, social and emotional assistance to men and women who have lost the ability to cope with their problems and provide for themselves.” SA Ex. C. The main purpose of ARCs is not to prepare its beneficiaries to pursue a technical, skilled, or semiskilled occupation or trade; ARCs offer no degree or other certificate programs. Higgins Aff. ¶¶ 9-11. However, RARC .offers GED classes. Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute ¶ 82.

• Potential participants in SA’s ARC programs undergo a comprehensive intake interview to ensure the program is a good match. SA Ex. C.

• SA does not compensate individuals who are placed by schools or universities for the purpose of meeting hourly field work requirements for credits. Thus, Plaintiff was an unpaid, volunteer intern at RARC. Likewise, SA received no compensation from WSU for accepting Plaintiff as an intern. Higgins Aff. ¶¶ 12-13.

• According to Higgins, no contract exists between WSU and SA regarding student field work placement, and WSU has no affiliation with SA other than having students placed there to complete their field work. Id. ¶ 14. WSU’s Field Placement Manual, however, states that “affiliation agreements” between the school and the field placement agency are mandatory: “If an affiliation agreement is declined, students cannot be placed at the agency .... ” The manual states that such agreements are to include the terms and conditions of the field placement. PI. Ex. B at 47. The manual repeatedly describes the relationship between WSU and the field placement agency as a “partnership,” id. at 6-8, and states that field placement sites are committed to “an education function.” Id. at 15.

Defendant Stefanski was Plaintiffs field supervisor at RARC. Stefanski interviewed Plaintiff and invited her to come on board as a field intern in December 2007. WSU Fact # 59. Stefanski knew that Plaintiff was pregnant at the time of the interview. WSU Fact #60. On January 7, 2008, Plaintiffs first day as an intern, Stefanski said to Plaintiff: “I see you have a ring on your finger” and asked if she was married. Plaintiff said “no.” PI. Dep. at 314; WSU Facts ## 134-136. The WSU Defendants concede that this exchange took place. PI. Facts ## 134-136.

Plaintiff testified that after this conversation, in which Stefanski purportedly first learned that Plaintiff was unmarried, things between her and Stefanski “seemed to go south.” PI. Dep. at 315. Subsequently, Stefanski commented to Plaintiff on two or three occasions that men at RARC may find Plaintiffs pregnancy sexually exciting or stimulating; in this vein, Stefanski told Plaintiff to wear looser-fitting clothing and to stop rubbing her stomach. Id. at 316-320. In addition, Plaintiff complained that Stefanski rarely assigned meaningful work to Plaintiff, instead leaving her to her own devices to find projects on her own. Id. at 329-330.

Plaintiffs relationship with Stefanski deteriorated as the semester progressed, prompting a meeting between Premo, Dm rack, Stefanski, and Plaintiff on January 17, 2008. See PI. Dep. at 160, 307. At the meeting, Plaintiff expressed a desire to switch to another internship and suggested a few alternate placements. Id. at 165— 166; PI. Fact # 151. Stefanski also expressed her desire to no longer serve as Plaintiffs field supervisor. Stefanski Dep. at 149; PI. Fact # 140. Durack memorialized her observations during the January 17 meeting in a memo to Plaintiffs student file. WSU Ex. 18, Durack wrote that attendance and timeliness issues were raised at the meeting, along with Plaintiff “not followpng] through on assignments given.” Id. Conversely, Plaintiff testified that no performance issues were raised, although she admits that her attendance was mentioned. PI. Dep. at 165. In addition, Stefanski’s complaints about Plaintiffs clothing and belly-rubbing were raised at the meeting. PI. Facts ##" 142-143.

Premo was not agreeable to reassignment. PI. Dep. at 166; PI. Fact # 152. Premo told Plaintiff to continue working at SA, if Stefanski. would allow it; otherwise, Premo informed Plaintiff that she would have to “drop out of the program due to [her] pregnancy.” PI. Dep. at 166; PI. Fact # 154. The WSU Defendants do not contest this exchange. PI. Fact # 155. Premo did not explain why she said this to Plaintiff. PI. Dep. at 167. Plaintiff immediately complained to WSU’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) and to the WSU Ombudsman, Vickie Anderson. PI. Dep. at 171, 195; PI. Fact # 156. Anderson suggested that Plaintiff wear a lab coat at RARC. PI. Fact # 157. Stefanski continued to tell Plaintiff to wear looser clothes, that men get “turned on” by pregnant women, and that her pregnancy was sexually exciting and stimulating to the men at RARC. PI. Fact # 159. Plaintiff continued to complain to the OEO on a weekly basis. PI. Fact # 163. Plaintiff also complained to Durack on January 22, 2008, PI. Fact # 161, which Premo testified was “frustrating.” Premo Dep. at 361.

Stefanski agreed to allow Plaintiff to continue her work at SA and, on January 30, 2008, Plaintiff sent an email to Premo saying that “things are a lot better now between [Stefanski] and I.” PI. Ex. O; PI. Fact # 164. Premo responded: “You have no idea how much that pleases me. I knew I was backing a winner.” PI. Ex. Q; PI. Fact # 165. About a week earlier, on January 22, 2008, Plaintiff sent Premo an email expressing concern that she may not receive a fair, unbiased evaluation from Stefanski. PI. Ex. P. For this reason, Plaintiff stated that she would start documenting her activities at SA and send copies to Premo on a weekly basis. Id.

At some point, Premo told Plaintiff that she did not want her to complain to Du-rack about purported discrimination at SA. PI. Fact # 162.

Sometime after January 2008, Stefanski initiated a series of telephone calls to Premo complaining — in Premo’s words — that Plaintiff was: (1) “making cookies in the kitchen,” (2) “wearing clothing that would show her undergarments and some of the men [at RARC] were getting stimulated,” (3) “parking in [Stefanski’s] parking space,” (4) using an unauthorized computer, (5) refusing to “learn about the history of’ SA, (6) “not being appropriate in her interviewing of the men” at RARC, (7) “gossiping a lot with the other staff/’ and (8) “rubbing her belly a lot.” Premo Dep. at 104-110, 117. Regarding Plaintiffs clothing, Premo and Gary Gillow, SA’s director of rehabilitative services and Stefanski’s supervisor, both testified that they felt that' Plaintiffs attire was appropriate. PI. Fact #176. Nonetheless, ■ Premo asked Plaintiff to wear looser clothing to accommodate Stefanski. Pl. Fact # 177.

Another meeting was held with Plaintiff, Premo, and Stefanski on March 17, 2008. Pl. Dep. 169-170. WSU Fact # 89. Gary Gillow also attended. Pl. Dep. at 168-169; Pl: Fact # 178. At the meeting, Gillow expressed a desire to replace Stefanski as Plaintiffs supervisor, but Premo was not agreeable because Gillow did not possess the requisite educational credentials. Pl. Dep. at 169-170; Pl. Fact # 180. Plaintiff expressed a concern that Stefanski would fail her “based on [her] discriminatory comments and egregious actions,” but Premo assured Plaintiff that she (Premo) alone assigned grades. Pl. Dep. at 170; Pl. Fact # 187. Premo told Plaintiff that she had the knowledge to go out and do social work, and that she would not fail her. Pl. Fact # 188. Premo advised Plaintiff to stop rubbing her belly and to buy bigger clothes. Pl. Dep. at 170-171; Pl. Facts ## 183, 185. In addition, Plaintiff expressed her belief at this meeting that she was being discriminated against and mentioned her contacts with OEO. Pl. Fact # 186.

At some point during the semester, Plaintiff was instructed to prepare “biopsychosocial assessments” of clients and “process recordings.” WSU Fact # 91. Premo testified that the assessments submitted by Plaintiff “weren’t good” and were “too superficial.” Premo Dep. 129-130, 140. Premo further testified as to seemingly substantial problems with Plaintiffs performance and abilities in the area of social work. Id. at 129-130, 140, 161— 164, 211, 214; Pl. Ex. X. Plaintiff admitted that she did not complete all the required biopsychosocial assessments, but stated that she could not do so because she was not given clients on which to complete such assessments. Pl. Dep. at 186.

On one particular occasion, Plaintiff complained that an employee of SA by the name of Glen Maloney called her a “beached whale” and remarked: “I am sure [your parents] are really proud that they have a daughter that is having a baby out of wedlock,” and “If you didn’t live in Bloomfield Hills then you would be living in Taylor in a trailer park.” Pl. Aff. ¶ 16; Pl. Fact # 189. Plaintiff was “very distraught” over these comments. Pl. Dep. at 380.

On March 24, 2008, Plaintiff gave Stefanski a performance evaluation for Stefanski to complete, in accordance with WSU requirements. Pl. Dep. at 177; Pl. Fact # 194. Shortly thereafter, Stefanski told Plaintiff again to wear looser clothing and remarked: “If you don’t do what I say then Carol Premo will fail you.” Pl. Aff. ¶ 8; Pl. Fact # 196.

At around this time, Plaintiff and Premo spoke on the phone. Plaintiff again expressed her concern about getting an unbiased evaluation from Stefanski, and Premo told Plaintiff that she was “doing great.” Premo Dep. at 353; Pl. Fact # 197. Premo also told Plaintiff that Stefanski had never failed anyone. Pl. Dep. at 176; Pl. Fact # 198.

Stefanski completed the evaluation on April 14, 2008, giving Plaintiff “does not meet” ratings in 53 out of 54 categories, with abysmal comments, concluding:

Sadly, it is the feeling of the field instructor that this student is sadly lacking in the area of social work. This internship has taught the student nothing of value because she has not applied herselfi

Pl. Ex. S; Pl. Facts ## 199-200. Additionally, Stefanski testified during her deposition that Plaintiffs attitude was “poor,” that she acted like she would be “better off’ interning somewhere else, and ' appeared “totally disinterested.” Stefan-ski Dep. at 120-122. Gillow, Stefanski’s supervisor, took the position that Stefan-ski’s evaluation of Plaintiff was “biased” based on their “interpersonal conflicts.” Gillow Aff. ¶ 8; Pl. Fact # 253.

Plaintiff attacks Stefanski’s evaluation of her on several fronts, complaining that it should have had a: (1) “learning plan” attached to it, (2) written comment associated with each and every “does not meet” mark, and (3) description of all assignments and field experiences. The WSU Defendants admit that the evaluation was deficient in these regards. Pl. Facts ## 204-208. Plaintiff also makes much of the fact that she was not made aware of any performance concerns prior to receiving the negative evaluation. Pl. Dep. at 184; Pl. Facts ## 190-191. However, as explained above, attendance and timeliness issues were brought to Plaintiffs attention at the January 17, 2008 meeting, along with Plaintiffs clothing issue and belly-rubbing. Pl. Dep. at 165; Pl. Facts ## 142-143. Some of these issues we^e discussed again at the March 17, 2008 meeting. Pl. Dep. at 170-171; Pl. Facts ## 183,185.

After Plaintiff became aware of Stefan-ski’s evaluation, on April 15, 2008, Plaintiff emailed Premo, stating that she had received a failing review from Stefanski, that she felt she had been discriminated against, and that she was “livid.” Pl. Ex. T; Pl. Fact # 210. Plaintiff wrote a substantive rebuttal to Stefanski’s evaluation, contesting each aspect of it. Pl. Ex. U; Pl. Fact # 217.

In a letter dated April 25, 2008, Premo informed Plaintiff that she had failed her field placement, which meant, per WSU policy, Plaintiff would be terminated from the MSW program. The letter explains Premo’s reasons for issuing the failing grade. In short, Premo concluded that Plaintiff (1) did not complete assignments, (2) inappropriately fraternized with staff and clients, (3) did not maintain proper attendance, (4) did not cooperate with Stefanski, (5) was resistant to learning about the social work practice, skills, and ethics, (6) was resistant to constructive criticism, and (7) failed to wear looser clothing when asked by Stefanski. Pl. Ex. X; Pl. Facts _ ## 221-222. Plaintiff admits that some of these matters were raised during the semester, but maintains that most of them were not, and that she was sandbagged by the evaluation. Pl. Facts ## 223, 225.

Premo testified that she did not rely on Stefanski’s evaluation “an awful lot” in evaluating Plaintiffs performance at SA, Premo Dep. at 246; however, Premo did admit that she “count[s] the evaluation.” Id. at 254.

On April -29, 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint with OEO charging pregnancy discrimination against Stefanski. Pl. Ex. W; Pl. Fact #220. The complaint is discussed in more detail below.

On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff called Durack regarding the evaluation. Pl. Fact # 230. When Premo found out that Plaintiff had contacted Durack, she angrily reminded Plaintiff not to call Durack and stated: ‘You are in deep trouble with me and I am not changing your grade.” Pl. Fact # 231. The WSU Defendants admit that this exchange occurred, id., however, Premo testified that she does not remember saying this to Plaintiff, and that the “deep trouble” comment does not sound like something she would say. Premo Dep. at 337. Premo further testified that it was “not appropriate” for a student to call Durack because the Director of Field Education “does not want to be called by all the students.” Id.

WSU’s Field Education Manuel states that a student having issues with her field instructor is “free to consult” the Director of Field Education, who was Durack at all pertinent times. Pl. Ex. B at 61. In fact, the Manuel actually requires students to report “inappropriate behavior” to the Director of Field Education. Id. at 22.

On May 2, 2008, Phyllis Vroom, Dean of WSU’s School of Social Work, sent Plaintiff a letter officially terminating her from the program. PI. Ex. Y. On May 16, 2008, Plaintiff appealed her grade to Vroom. Pl. Ex. CC; Pl. Facts ## 258-259. On July 21, 2008, Premo sent Vroom an email urging her to deny Plaintiffs grade appeal. Pl. Ex. FF; Pl. Fact # 266. On August 5, 2008, Vroom denied the appeal, concluding that the unsatisfactory grade “was awarded ... as a result of your poor performance throughout the course.” Pl. Ex. GG; Pl. Fact # 270. Vroom had never met, or had a conversation with, Plaintiff. Pl. Fact # 271. On September 9, 2008, Plaintiff appealed Vroom’s decision to the Office of the Provost. Pl. Éx. HH. On December 17, 2008, the Provost denied Plaintiffs appeal, stating that Vroom had correctly followed WSU’s grade appeal procedures. WSU Ex. 40; Pl. Fact # 272.

Meanwhile, on August 26, 2008, Plaintiff requested reinstatement to the School of Social Work. Pl. Ex. II; Pl. Fact # 273. A three-member committee consisting of WSU faculty members — Defendants Shawna Lee, Antonio Gonzalez — Prendes, and Margaret Brunhofer — was convened to review the request. Pl. Ex. KK; Pl. Facts ## 274-277. Lee chaired the committee. Pl. Fact. #280. The committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of reinstatement, finding no extenuating circumstances. The committee noted that Plaintiff did not accept responsibility for actions that led to her termination, and that Plaintiff had not demonstrated changed circumstances or a plan for remediation. Id. Lee does not recall any mention of Plaintiffs marital status at the time the committee made its recommendation. Lee Dep. at 52. The WSU Defendants admit that Plaintiff had no input with respect to what documents were considered by the committee, but points out that Plaintiff had control over the content of her request for reinstatement. Pl. Fact # 283. On September 24, 2008, Vroom accepted the committee’s recommendation. Pl. Ex. LL. Vroom admitted that the School of Social Work has reinstated students in the past who have failed numerous classes and received an unsatisfactory mark in field work. Vroom Dep. at 251; Pl. Fact # 324.

As , referenced above, Plaintiff filed a eompíaint with the OEO on April 29, 2008. Pl. Ex. W; Pl. Fact #220. The OEO contacted Durack, Durack Dep. at 327, 329; WSU Fact # 108, who then sent the OEO information pertaining to Plaintiffs situation. WSU Ex. 27. On May 13, 2008, the OEO sent Plaintiff a letter stating that (1) it did not have jurisdiction over her complaint because Stefanski was not an employee of WSU, (2) it had referred the matter to the School of Social Work, and (3) “[a]fter a thorough analysis of all the information ... obtained, there is insufficient evidence of pregnancy discrimination or other improper actions that would allow [OEO] to initiate a formal investigation.” WSU Ex. 28; PI. Fact # 243. Despite the letter’s reference to a “thorough analysis,” OEO’s Director admitted later that his office had not conducted any investigation. PI. Fact # 245.

Prior to her service as a field intern with VA and SA, Plaintiffs worked at a Dear-born, Michigan-based social services agency called Vista Maria, where Plaintiff was promised a social worker job upon completion of her MSW degree. PI. Dep. at 48, 51-52.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). When evaluating a summary judgment motion,

credibility judgments and weighing of the evidence are prohibited. Rather, the evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, the facts and any inferences that can be drawn from those facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Biegas v. Quickway Carriers, Inc., 573 F.3d 365, 373 (6th Cir.2009) (quotation marks and brackets omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. SA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff asserts Title IX and ELCRA pregnancy and marital-status discrimination claims against SA, along with retaliation claims (Counts I, II, IV, and V). SA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as to all claims filed against it because it is not an educational institution, or an agent of an educational institution, and because neither Plaintiff nor SA is covered by the ELCRA. Plaintiff disagrees with SA on all points.

1. Discrimination by Educational Institutions

Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., with certain exceptions not applicable here,

[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis. of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

20 U.S.C. § 1681. Michigan law contains a similar provision. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2402 (“An educational institution shall not ... [discriminate against an individual in the full utilization of or benefit from the institution, or the services, activities, or programs provided by the institution because of ... sex.”). The Supreme Court has stated that Title IX applies only to “educational institutions.” See Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 695 n. 17, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (“Title IX is applicable only to certain educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance ... ”). “Educational institution” is defined, in relevant part, as “any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any institution of vocational, professional, or higher education ...” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(c). SA argues that it does not fit this definition, and the Court agrees.

RARC is obviously not a preschool, an elementary school, a secondary school, or an institution of higher education. This leaves only an institution of vocational or professional education as possibilities, and RARC is neither. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.2(n) (defining an institution of professional education as an institution offering “a program of academic study that leads to a first professional degree in a field for which there is a national specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary [of Education]”); 34 C.F.R. § 106.2(o) (defining an institution of vocational education as “a school or institution ... which has as its primary purpose preparation of students to pursue a technical, skilled, or semiskilled occupation of trade, or to pursue study in a technical field ...”). Although RARC offers GED classes to certain of its beneficiaries, Plaintiff presents no evidence that it offers “a program of academic study that leads to a first professional degree,” and its “primary purpose” is certainly not to provide education, but rather — as the name “Adult Rehabilitation Center” implies — to provide rehabilitation services for adults with substance abuse problems.

Plaintiff also argues, without citation to any authority and without further explanation, that RARC qualifies as an educational institution through its “longstanding partnership” with WSU’s School of Social Work. This argument is undermined by the Second Circuit’s persuasive and well-reasoned decision in O’Connor v. Davis, 126 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.1997), a materially indistinguishable case discussed extensively in SA’s motion but not mentioned by Plaintiff in her response brief.

The plaintiff in O’Connor was a social work student who was placed at the defendant-hospital, as an unpaid student volunteer, to fulfill her academic field work requirement. Id. at 113. The plaintiff brought a Title IX claim against the hospital after purportedly being sexually harassed by one of its doctors. Id. at 113—114. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that the hospital was not transformed into an educational institution, for Title IX purposes, by permitting a student to perform volunteer field work at its facility. Id. at 114. After extensive analysis and discussion, the Second Circuit reached the same conclusion, writing: ‘We decline :.. to convert [the hospital’s] willingness to accept volunteers into conduct analogous to administering an ‘education program'’ as contemplated by Title IX.” Id. at 118. In addition, the court refused to impute “the fact that [Plaintiffs university] operates an ‘education program’ ... to [the hospital] simply because [the plaintiff] was a student at the former while she performed volunteer work with the latter,” because

the two entities have no institutional affiliation; there is no written agreement . binding the two entities in any way; no staff are shared; no funds are circulated between them; and, indeed, [university] students had previously volunteered at [the hospital] on only a few occasions.

Id.

As O’Connor is nearly indistinguishable from the present case, it eompellingly counsels against a finding that RARC is an educational institution for Title IX purposes. RARC is not an educational institution and, therefore, Title IX does not apply.

In a similar vein, Plaintiff argues that SA is liable under Title IX and the ELCRA as an “agent” of WSU. The Court does not find the argument persuasive. Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that Title IX applies to “agents” of educational institutions. Thus, the Court rejects Plaintiffs attempt to hold SA liable under Title IX on an agency theory.

Unlike Title IX, Michigan’s counterpart — the ELCRA — expressly covers agents of educational institutions. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2401. Thus, if a reasonable jury could find that SA was acting as an agent of WSU, Plaintiffs EL-CRA claim against SA must proceed.

“Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a ‘principal’) manifests assent to another person (an ‘agent’) that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006). Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find an agency relationship between WSU and SA on the present record, because there is no evidence supporting the crucial elements of an agency relationship. In particular, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that: (a) SA owed a special or fiduciary duty to WSU, see In re Susser Estate, 254 Mich.App. 232, 657 N.W.2d 147, 150 (2002) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 13 cmt. a (1958) for the proposition that “[t]he agreement to act on behalf of the principal causes the agent to be a fiduciary, that is, a person having a duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters connected with his undertaking.”); (b) SA was authorized to conduct business on WSU’s behalf, see Meretta v. Peach, 195 Mich.App. 695, 491 N.W.2d 278, 280 (1992) (“An agency relationship may arise when there is a manifestation by the principal that the agent may act on his account.”); or (c) WSU controlled SA, see St. Clair Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Intermediate Educ. Ass’n/Mich. Educ. Ass’n, 458 Mich. 540, 581 N.W.2d 707, 716 n. 18 (1998) (“[A]n agency relationship arises only where the principal has the right to control the conduct of the agent with respect to matters entrusted to him”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff contends that several facts support her argument that an agency relationship exists between WSU and SA. First, Plaintiff points out that the two entities claimed to work “in concert” or in “partnership,” and generally collaborated on issues related to the supervision of interns. These facts, however, in no way support a finding of agency because they are not probative of the crucial elements of an agency relationship, as outlined above. They do not evidence any special duty, authority to act on behalf of WSU, or control by WSU.

Second, Plaintiff contends that certain testimony in the record establishes the element of control by WSU. Plaintiff notes that Premo testified that she “closely supervised” Stefanski, see Premo Dep. at 77-78, and that Durack “admitted” that she was “in charge” of both field placements and field instructors. See Durack Dep. at 66-67. However, the Court concludes that these terse snippets of testimony fail to raise an issue of fact supporting an agency finding.

Under Michigan law, to establish control, it must be shown that the alleged principal controls specific conduct of the alleged agent. St. Clair Intermediate Sch. Dist., 581 N.W.2d at 716 (“[F]undamental to the existence of an agency relationship is the right to control the conduct of the agent ... with respect to matters entrusted to him.”) (citation omitted). See also Little v. Howard Johnson Co., 183 Mich. App. 675, 455 N.W.2d 390, 393 (1990) (upholding grant of summary disposition to franchisor resulting in no liability for injury to plaintiff on franchisee’s property, where franchisor did not control the “day-to-day operations” of the franchisee’s business). Mere “general oversight” does not suffice. Id. Plaintiff fails to identify even one specific act of control whereby Stefan-ski was ordered or directed by WSU to do anything. Conclusory and non-specific testimony that Premo “closely supervised” Stefanski and that Durack was “in charge of field instructors” is, at best, “general oversight,” which is not sufficient under Michigan law.

Notably, WSU could not control SA or Stefanski with regard to the specific action complained of in this ease, namely, Stefan-ski’s allegedly discriminatory evaluation of Plaintiff. As Plaintiffs field instructor charged specifically with the task of evaluating Plaintiffs performance as a field intern, Stefanski had full discretion to evaluate Plaintiff without any input from — or control by — WSU and its administration. This fact seals the fate of Plaintiffs agency argument under Michigan law. See Meredith v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., No. 288507, 2010 WL 1404426, at *2 (Mich.Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010) (“Because the record lacks any evidence to demonstrate that [the purported principal] had the right to control [the purported agent] when [the purported agent] committed the allegedly negligent act, a jury would be precluded from finding [the purported principal] liable pursuant to a theory of actual agency”)

In sum, no reasonable jury could find that SA could, or did, act on behalf of WSU; that it owed WSU any duty, much less a duty even remotely approximating a fiduciary duty; or that WSU controlled the conduct of Stefanski or others at SA through Premo and/or Durack. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot establish an agency relationship between WSU and SA, and Plaintiffs ELCRA claim against SA fails.

2. Discrimination in Employment and Place of Public Accommodation/Public Service

The ELCRA “prohibits discrimination because of sex in employment, places of public accommodation, and public services.” Hamed v. Wayne County, 490 Mich. 1, 803 N.W.2d 237, 243 (2011). See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 37.2202(l)(a) (employment); 37.2302 (public accommodation and public services). Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against in a place of employment and in a place of public aceommodation/public service. The Court addresses each claim, in turn.

a. Discrimination in a Place of Employment

Under the ELCRA, “[a]n employer shall not ... discharge ... an individual ... because of ... sex ... or marital status.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(l)(a). SA argues that because Plaintiff was an unpaid intern, she is not an employee under the ELCRA and, thus, Plaintiffs ELCRA claim under § 37.2202 is not viable as a matter of law.

The so-called “economic reality test” is used to determine whether an employment relationship exists for purposes of the ELCRA. Ashker v. Ford Motor Co., 245 Mich.App. 9, 627 N.W.2d 1, 3 (2001). The factors to be considered are: (1) control of a worker’s duties; (2) payment of wages; (3) right to hire, fire, and discipline; and (4) performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer’s business toward the accomplishment of a common goal. Chilingirian v. City of Fra ser, 194 Mich.App. 65, 486 N.W.2d 347, 349 (1992). The test considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding the work performed and no single factor is controlling. Id.

The Court finds that the four Chilingirian factors tip against finding that Plaintiff was an employee of RARC. Regarding the first factor — control of a worker’s duties — the record as a whole reflects that Plaintiff received her day-to-day assignments from Stefanski, and not from WSU. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff.

Regarding the second factor — payment of wages — Plaintiff was not compensated for her work with SA, nor does the evidence suggest that she received significant remuneration of any kind, such as insurance, retirement, or disability benefits, or the like. She was an unpaid volunteer. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of SA, a fact that Plaintiff admits.

Regarding the third factor — right to hire, fire, and discipline — the parties do not direct the Court to evidence on the question of whether Stefanski or anyone at SA had the authority to hire, fire, or discipline Plaintiff and, in fact, the parties scarcely discuss this element of the Chilingirian framework. On the one hand, the record suggests that Stefanski had at least some control over Plaintiffs fate as an intern at RARC. Indeed, when Plaintiff expressed a desire to complete her internship at another agency, Premo told Plaintiff to continue to work at SA, provided Stefanski would allow it. PI. Dep. at 166. In addition, the record reflects that Plaintiff interviewed with Stefanski, who — in Premo’s words — gave the “green light” for Plaintiff to begin working at SA. Premo Dep. at 103-104. These facts suggest that Stefanski had some control over Plaintiffs status at RARC.

On the other hand, the record is also clear that Premo was the individual with the most control over Plaintiffs involvement and status at RARC. The following facts illustrate the point:

• Only Premo — and not Stefanski or anyone else at SA — had the authority to award Plaintiff her final grade. Premo Dep. at 181. Thus, Plaintiffs ultimate fate lay in the hands of WSU and not SA.

• Plaintiff testified that Premo told her that Stefanski “had to accept” her and “could not decline” her for an internship at RARC. PI. Dep. at 152.

• Stefanski testified that she does not report to anyone at SA about the progress of WSU interns; rather, she reports only to WSU faculty. Stefan-ski Dep. at 40.

• WSU set the number of hours required for the field placement, thereby controlling a central tern of Plaintiffs experience at RARC. PI. Dep. 275-277.

All in all, this element of the Chilingirian framework does not weigh strongly in favor of either party, as certain facts weigh in favor of Plaintiff, while others weigh in favor of SA.

The final factor is whether Plaintiffs performance duties were an integral part of the employer’s business toward the accomplishment of a common goal. Stefan-ski testified that RARC has one to six interns working for it at any given time, but that the number does not fluctuate based on beneficiary enrollment. Stefan-ski Aff. ¶ 3. According to Stefanski, RARC “is able to function and fully provide services to [its] beneficiaries without the use of any student interns.” Id. ¶ 4. This testimony strongly supports SA’s view that student interns such as Plaintiff are not “integral” to the operation of RARC, and the record as a whole suggests that the internship was for Plaintiffs benefit and not the benefit of RARC. In addition, Plaintiff admits that she only met with two SA beneficiaries during her internship for one hour each per week. Plaintiffs contribution of two hours of counseling per week, for a temporary period,' does not render Plaintiffs assistance “integral” to the accomplishment of RARC’s common goal of rehabilitating its beneficiaries. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of SA.

Having balanced the Chilingirian factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff was not an employee of RARC for ELCRA purposes. Key factors — including lack of remuneration, the absence of effective control by SA over Plaintiffs fate, and the non-essentiality of Plaintiffs work to SA’s mission — demonstrate that Plaintiff was not an SA employee. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted in favor of SA on Plaintiffs ELCRA claim under § 37.2202.

b. Discrimination in a Place of Public Accommodation/Public Service

Plaintiff argues that, even if SA did not employ her, it is liable because the ELCRA also prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation/public service. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2302. Under § 37.2302, “a person shall not ... [d]eny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of ... sex ... or marital status.” To state a claim under § 37.2302(a), Plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) discrimination based on a protected characteristic (2) by a person, (3) resulting in the denial of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (4) of a place of public accommodation. Haynes v. Neshewat, 477 Mich. 29, 729 N.W.2d 488, 492 (2007). The parties disagree about the fourth element of the Haynes framework, i.e., whether RARC is a place of public accommodation.

. A “place of public accommodation” is defined as follows:

(a) “Place of public accommodation” means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Place of public accommodation also includes the facilities of the following private clubs:

(i) A country club or golf club.

(ii) A boating or yachting club.

(iii) A sports or athletic club.

(iv) A dining club, except a dining club that in good faith limits its membership to the members of a particular religion for the purpose of furthering the teachings or principles of that religion and not for the purpose of excluding individuals of a particular gender, race, or color.

Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2301(a).

RARC does not come within the statutory definition of a place of public accommodation. As an initial matter, it is beyond dispute that SA is a private organization. Its mission statement reflects that it “is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church,” and that “[i]ts mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ ...” PI. Ex. RR. Moreover, the following portion of SA’s website unequivocally demonstrates that RARC is selective of its membership, and that its services are not available to members of the public:

Rehabilitative Program

The Salvation Army’s Adult Rehabilitation Centers provide spiritual, social and emotional assistance for men and women who have lost the ability to cope with their problems and provide for themselves.

Each center offers residential housing, work, and group and individual therapy, all in a clean, wholesome environment. The physical and spiritual care that program participants receive prepares them to re-enter society and return to gainful employment. Many of those who have been rehabilitated are reunited with their families and resume a normal life.

Who Is Eligible?

Every potential participant undergoes a comprehensive intake interview to ensure the ARC program is the best possible match for them. If the interview process determines it’s not, we’ll make every effort to refer them to a program that will be.

SA Ex. C (emphasis added). This evidence demonstrates that the RARC program is made available only to those who successfully complete a significant screening process. Plaintiff offers no convincing evidence rebutting SA’s evidence demonstrating that RARC’s services are not open to the public. Accordingly, RARC is not a “place of public accommodation,” as defined by § 37.2301(a). Nor is RARC a “public service” for the reasons set forth in the margin.

Nor is there any liability by way of § 37.2308. That provision creates a general exemption, under which private clubs and establishments not “open to the public” are not subject to liability under § 37.2301(a). It also creates an exception from that general exemption, under which private clubs and establishments not open to the public are, nonetheless, liable under § 37.2301(a) if their “the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations ... are made available to the customers or patrons of another establishment that is a place of public accommodation.” Here, there is no evidence that RARC offers its services to anyone other than those individuals who are accepted into the program after the “comprehensive intake interview,” referenced above. Thus, the exception is not applicable, nor does any other language contained in that section subject SA to ELCRA liability. For all these reasons, RARC is not a place of public accommodation, and SA is not subject to liability as such.

In support of her position that RARC is a place of public accommodation, Plaintiff relies on Rogers v. International Association of Lions Clubs, 636 F.Supp. 1476 (E.D.Mich.1986); however, Rogers is distinguishable. The defendant organization in Rogers was held to be a place of public accommodation because it selected its members with only “perfunctory scrutiny” and its meetings were held in public places, such as restaurants, with attendance open to even nonmembers. Id. at 1479-1480. In essence, anyone who desired membership was accepted. The opposite is true in the present case; here, the record evidence is uncontroverted that the intake process involves a “comprehensive ... interview to ensure the ARC program is the best possible match for them.”

The present case is more analogous to Doe v. Young Marines of the Marine Corps League, 277 Mich.App. 391, 745 N.W.2d 168 (2007). There, the plaintiff brought a sexual harassment claim under the ELCRA’s public-accommodation provision against the Young Marines, “a private, non-profit corporation run by volunteers whose purpose is to promote the mental, moral and physical development of its members, who are ages eight through high school.” 745 N.W.2d at 169. The Court of Appeals held that the Young Marines was not a place of public accommodation, and therefore not subject to liability under § 37.2801(a), because it was a private club whose services were not made available to anyone other than its members. The same can be said about RARC.

In sum, SA is neither an employer of Plaintiff, nor a place of accommodation within the meaning of the ELCRA. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of SA must be granted as to Plaintiffs claims under the ELCRA.

B. Stefanski’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff asserts ELCRA discrimination and retaliation (but no Title IX claims) against Defendant Stefanski, along with claims for tortious interference with a contractual relationship and tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy (Counts IV, V, and VI). Stefanski argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on the ELCRA claims for the same reasons asserted by SA, discussed above. Because the Court has already determined that Plaintiff was not an employee of RARC for ELCRA purposes, and that RARC is not a place of public accommodation or public service, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Stefanski on Plaintiffs ELCRA claims.

Plaintiff also asserts claims against Stefanski for tortious interference with a contract and tortious interference with a business expectancy. Plaintiffs theory on the contract claim is that Plaintiff and WSU’s MSW program. With regard to the business expectancy claim, Plaintiff alleges that Stefanski interfered with Plaintiffs relationship with a prospective employer— Vista Maria — in the same way.

The elements of tortious interference with a contract are: (1) a contract, (2) a breach, and (3) instigation of the breach without justification by the defendant. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Columbia Cas. Ins. Co., 194 Mich.App. 300, 486 N.W.2d 351, 358 (1992). Stefanski argues that summary judgment should be granted in her favor because (1) Plaintiff cannot establish causation, i.e., Stefanski’s review did not directly lead to Plaintiffs purported damages, as WSU exercised its own independent judgment in awarding Plaintiff her failing grade, (2) Stefanski’s evaluation of Plaintiff is protected by absolute or qualified privilege, and (3) the relationship between Plaintiff and WSU relative to the dismissal process is not contractual in nature under Michigan law.

The Court agrees with Stefanski that Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with a contract is not viable because Michigan courts do not recognize an express or implied contract between student and university relative to the evaluation and dismissal process. To sustain her claim, Plaintiff must show — among other things — the existence of a contract between her and WSU and a breach thereof. See Admiral, 486 N.W.2d at 358. On the one hand, Plaintiff argues that Michigan courts recognize an implied contract between university and student relative to dismissal. In support, Plaintiff cites Carlton v. Trustees of University of De troit Mercy, No. 225926, 2002 WL 533885 (Mich.Ct.App. Apr. 2, 2002). Stefanski, on the other hand, relying on a number of cases, argues that Michigan law does not recognize an implied contract between student and university relative to the dismissal process.

In Woodward v. Trinity Health-Michigan, No. 292172, 2011 WL 118812, at *3 (Mich.Ct.App. Jan. 13, 2011), the Michigan Court of Appeals flatly held that there is no implied contract between a university and its students relative to evaluation and dismissal for the purposes of a tortious interference claim. The plaintiff in Woodward was a medical student completing his clinical rotation at the defendant-hospital. Id. at *1. Hospital staff submitted an unflattering evaluation to the student’s school, prompting the school to initiate proceedings to dismiss the student from the school. Id. The student brought a tortious inference with a contract claim against the hospital for writing the evaluation, asserting that the hospital interfered with an implied contract between himself and his school. Id. at **2, 5. The Woodward court held that the student’s interference claim against the hospital failed because no express or implied contract existed between the student and his university relative to continued enrollment. Thus, the student could not establish the existence of a contract and a breach thereof. Id. at **3, 5'. See also Amaya v. Mott Cmty. Coll., No. 186755, 1997 WL 33353479, at *1 (Mich.Ct.App. Mar. 7, 1997) (“[S]tate and federal courts [in Michigan] have stated that under Michigan law contract ... claims brought by a student against a college or university fail.”). Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with a contract is barred, given that the above authorities hold that there is no contractual relationship between university and student relative to dismissal.

Plaintiff urges the Court to find an implied contract between her and WSU based the Michigan Court of Appeals’ statement in Carlton, the sole case on which Plaintiff relies, that an implied contractual right exists between a university and its students “givfing] the student the right to continued enrollment free from arbitrary dismissal.” 2002 WL 533885, at *3. However, as another judge in this district has recognized, the Carlton court did not mean what it said when it characterized a student’s due process right to continued enrollment free from arbitrary dismissal as a contract right. See Zwick v. Regents of Univ. of Mich., No. 06-12639, 2008 WL 1902031, at *5 (E.D.Mich. Apr. 28, 2008) (interpreting Michigan law). While acknowledging the Carlton court’s statement,.- Zwick clarified that the implied contractual right to which the Carlton court referred “amounted to ‘the right to continued enrollment free from arbitrary dismissal’ ” under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Notwithstanding Carlton, the Zwick court reiterated: “Michigan courts ... do not extend this recognition to construe a contractual relationship between a student and a university.” 2008 WL 1902031, at *5 n. 3. Summary judgment is proper in favor of Stefanski on Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship.

Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy fails, as well. The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy are: (1) the existence of a valid business relationship- or expectancy, (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy by the interferer, (3) an intentional and wrongful interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy, and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy was disrupted. P.T. Today, Inc. v. Comm’r of Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 270 Mich.App. 110, 715 N.W.2d 398, 422 (2006). Plaintiffs theory is that Stefanski’s evaluation contributed to Premo’s decision to fail her, resulting in Plaintiffs dismissal from the MSW program, which then resulted in Plaintiff losing out on a job promised to her by Vista Maria, the Dearborn-based social services agency where Plaintiff had previously worked. Pl. Dep. at 48.

Stefanski argues that Plaintiffs business expectancy claim fails because (1) Plaintiff cannot establish causation, i.e., Stefanski’s review did not directly lead to Plaintiffs purported damages, as WSU exercised its own independent judgment in awarding Plaintiff her failing grade, (2) Stefanski’s evaluation of Plaintiff is protected by absolute or qualified privilege, and (3) Plaintiff has not provided evidence demonstrating that Stefanski knew of any particular business expectancy at the time she submitted Plaintiffs evaluation.

The Court finds Stefanski’s third argument persuasive; the fatal problem with Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is that she has adduced no evidence demonstrating that Stefanski knew of Plaintiffs job opportunity with Vista Maria at the time she submitted her evaluation of Plaintiff. As stated above, “knowledge of the relationship or expectancy by the interferer” is a required element of a claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy. P.T. Today, 715 N.W.2d at 422. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 cmt. i (1979) (“To be subject to liability ... the actor must have knowledge of the contract with which he is interfering.... Although the actor’s conduct is in fact the cause of another’s failure to perform a contract, the actor does not induce or otherwise intentionally cause that failure if he has no knowledge of the contract.”). Because Plaintiff has not established that Stefanski was aware of Plaintiffs expectancy with Vista Maria, her claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy fails.

Plaintiff argued during oral argument that Stefanski’s general knowledge that Plaintiff would be deprived of any employment as a social worker is sufficient. Plaintiff has presented no authority in support of this position, and the Court is aware of none. Moreover, three cases belie Plaintiffs argument. In the first, the Michigan Court of Appeals wrote — without further elaboration — that the expectancy of which the interferer must be aware “must generally be specific.” Cedroni Assoc. v. Tomblinson, Harburn Assoc., 290 Mich.App. 577, 802 N.W.2d 682, 690 (2010). In the second, another judge of this district, interpreting Michigan law, granted summary judgment for the alleged interferer because the plaintiff failed to rebut the interferer’s evidence that he (the interferer) did not know about the specific business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party. See Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc., 747 F.Supp.2d 853, 865 (E.D.Mich.2010). In the third, a Tennessee appellate court, interpreting the tort under Tennessee law (which is seemingly identical to Michigan law on the subject), wrote that “the defendant must know of the relationship, and this element is not met by ‘mere awareness’ of plaintiffs general business dealings.” Watson’s Carpet & Floor Coverings, Inc. v. McCormick, 247 S.W.3d 169, 176 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007). This Court is in agreement with Cedroni Innovation Ventures, and McCormick. If knowledge of generalized business dealings were sufficient, the second element of the P.T. Today framework (requiring the interferer to have knowledge of “the” expectancy) would become essentially meaningless.

C. Motion for Summary Judgment of the WSU Defendants

Plaintiff brings several claims against the WSU Defendants. First, Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against in violation of Title IX and the ELCRA for complaining of discrimination based on her pregnancy and marital status. Second, Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy and marital status in violation of Title IX and the ELCRA. Finally, Plaintiff brings claims against Premo, Durack, Vroom, Lee, Prendes, and Brunhofer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural and substantive due process violations. The Court addresses these claims, in turn.

1. Retaliation Under Title IX and the ELCRA

Plaintiff asserts retaliation claims against WSU, Premo, Durack, and Vroom under Title IX and the ELCRA. Retaliation claims under Title IX are analyzed under the same legal framework as claims brought under Title VII. Nelson v. Christian Bros. Univ., 226 Fed.Appx. 448, 454 (6th Cir.2007) (collecting cases). Plaintiffs may prove their discrimination claims by either direct or indirect (circumstantial) evidence. Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc). On the one hand, “[d]ireet evidence of discrimination is that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s actions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 548 (6th Cir.2004) (direct evidence “proves the existence of a fact without requiring any inferences”). “Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is proof that does not on its face establish discriminatory animus, but does allow a factfinder to dr