Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff, a cardiologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and a former director of the joint clinical cardiac electrophysiology fellowship program of the University and UPMC, alleged under Title VII that the University, UPMC, and three officials retaliated against him by removing him as director of the fellowship program and barring him from interacting with fellows and residents after he published an article critical of the use of race and ethnic factors in admissions in medical schools, residency programs, and fellowship programs.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s assertion that the March 2020 publication of his article was protected activity under Title VII, finding that it was a general complaint about the industry and did not specifically address practices at the University or UPMC.  It permitted him to proceed, however, regarding statements he made in a July 2020 meeting with University and UPMC officials in which he raised his concerns that their admissions practices might be contrary to law. 

Memorandum and Order denying Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former Associate Vice President at Lamar Institute of Technology who is of Chinese descent, brought discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims against the Institute after he was terminated for not following protocols in responding to an accident in the Institute’s truck driver training program.  Plaintiff alleged that he experienced various forms of retaliation after he attempted to discipline one of his direct reports for alleged crude and unprofessional behavior.  He also alleged that he requested that the “matter be referred to the Chancellor’s Office to be investigated fairly, without racial prejudice,” noting that both his supervisors and his direct report were “of the same race.”  The court permitted his disparate treatment claim to proceed, finding that he had sufficiently alleged that he was treated differently from other members of the President’s Executive Team who were not Asian.  It also permitted his hostile work environment claim to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged a coordinated effort to call meetings in order to criticize him in front of other members of the Executive Team. 

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University.  Plaintiff, a former administrator at the University of Holy Cross who is white, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he was not selected for an interview for a vacant faculty position and then terminated for insubordination when he refused to attend a scheduled committee meeting.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana held that plaintiff’s disparate impact claim failed because (1) he failed to identify a specific policy or employment practice at issue in his challenge and (2) three of the four candidates who were selected for interviews were also white.  In holding that his retaliation claim also failed, the court found that plaintiff’s email refusing to attend a required meeting out of concern that he “would say something [he] would later regret” broke the causal link between his discrimination complaint and subsequent termination.   

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs, two former tenure-track professors at Bloomsburg University who are married and originally from India, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after the University, citing poor student evaluations and lack of progress in securing external research funding, denied them tenure and declined to renew their contracts.  Plaintiffs alleged that the University did not provide promised relocation costs, changed their teaching assignments, and retaliated against them for filing complaints and reporting alleged inaccuracies in reported graduation rates.  They also alleged that offensive comments created a hostile work environment.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Third Circuit held that plaintiffs’ discrimination claims failed (1) because they identified no similarly situated comparator who was treated differently and (2) because they did not show that the University’s concerns about evaluations and research were pretextual.  The court also held that the offensive comments plaintiffs cited were too isolated to affect a condition of employment.  Their retaliation claims similarly failed both (1) because the temporal proximity between their EEOC charges and their nonrenewal was insufficient to suggest causation and (2) because they were unable to demonstrate pretext.    

Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former tenure-track assistant professor at Delta State University who is of Iranian national origin, brought discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims against the University after (1) officials, citing poor student evaluations, allegedly pressured him to resign rather than accept a notice of nonrenewal and a terminal year and (2) his Department Chair, who is Turkish, replaced him with a new instructor who is also Turkish.  In permitting his discrimination claim to proceed, the court found allegations of hostile treatment from the Department Chair, together with evidence that the Chair was using Instagram prior to plaintiff’s termination to encourage the eventual replacement to apply for the position, sufficient to raise triable questions for a jury.  The court similarly found the temporal proximity between plaintiff’s discrimination complaints to HR and alleged efforts to hasten his departure sufficient to raise material questions as to retaliation.  Finally, the court found evidence that the chair denied plaintiff teaching materials, treated him uncivilly in public settings, and placed him on a performance improvement plan sufficient to raise triable questions of hostile work environment.

Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former Chief Diversity Officer and ADA/504 Coordinator at the City College of New York (CCNY), brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College and its President, alleging that her termination was in response to her support for reasonable accommodations, including one in which an individual allegedly suffered a medical emergency as a result of race-based harassment.  The court permitted her retaliation claims to proceed, finding she had sufficiently alleged that her termination followed the day after she had recommended granting one of the accommodation requests.  The court dismissed her discrimination claim, however, finding the allegation conclusory.