Babbar v. Ebadi
| Decision Date | 31 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2677-JWL.,97-2677-JWL. |
| Parties | Dr. Sunil BABBAR, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Yar M. EBADI, Dr. Bruce J. Prince, Dr. Stanley W. Elsea, Dr. James R. Coffman, Dr. Jon Wefald, and Kansas State University, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Sean M. Dwyer, Wichita, KS, Martin F McMahon, Martin F. McMahon & Assoc., Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Richard H. Seaton, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, for defendants.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that defendant Ebadi maliciously interfered with his tenure evaluation process; that the individual defendants conspired to deny him tenure and to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); that defendant Kansas State University denied him tenure on the basis of his sex, national origin and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and that the individual defendants violated his right to substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff also asserts two separate claims for injunctive relief against defendant Wefald and defendant Kansas State University, respectively, and requests the court award tenure to plaintiff. This matter is presently before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. #46). For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in its entirety and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
Plaintiff Sunil Babbar was employed as an assistant professor at Kansas State University in the Department of Management in the College of Business Administration from 1990 through May 1997. Defendant Yar M. Ebadi is Dean of the College of Business Administration. He has served as dean or interim dean since July 1, 1995. Defendant Ebadi was head of the Department of Management in 1990 when plaintiff was hired. Defendant Bruce J. Prince is head of the Department of Management, a position he has held since July 1995. He received tenure as a term of his appointment in 1995 as head of the department. Defendant Stanley W. Elsea is a tenured member of the Department of Management and currently is associate dean of the College of Business Administration. Defendant James R. Coffman is provost at Kansas State University, a position he has held since July 1987. Finally, defendant Jon Wefald is president of Kansas State University.
Prior to being considered for tenure at Kansas State University, an assistant professor serves a series of annual appointments during an extended probationary period. Decisions concerning tenure must be made before or during the sixth year. Candidates not approved for tenure are notified by their dean that the seventh year of service constitutes a terminal appointment. The university's tenure standards include the following:
C100.1. General Principles. There can be no simple list of accomplishments that, when achieved, guarantee that a faculty member will obtain tenure. Instead, tenure is granted. This action, taken by the Kansas Board of Regents, is based on the assessment of the tenured faculty of the University that a candidate has made outstanding contributions in appropriate academic endeavors. By granting tenure only to such individuals, the continued excellence of the University is ensured.
* * * * * *
C100.3. Tenure is not a right accorded to every faculty member. Nor is it granted simply as a result of a candidate's routinely meeting assigned duties with a record free of notable deficiencies.
The university's procedure for evaluating tenure candidates requires that a candidate compile and submit a file documenting his or her accomplishments. The tenured faculty individually review the candidate's file, meet to discuss the application, and then advise the department head regarding the candidate's qualifications for tenure. The department head forwards his or her written recommendation to the dean, accompanied by an explanation for the recommendation rendered. Each college is required to have an advisory committee on promotion and tenure. The dean, after consulting the department head and the college advisory committee, submits his or her recommendation to the provost. The faculty member is notified by the dean of his or her recommendation and of the report of the advisory committee. After consultation with the dean, the provost either recommends a grant of tenure to the Board of Regents or makes a decision denying tenure.
During the fifth year of his appointment (1994-95), plaintiff applied for early tenure consideration. His colleagues in the Department of Management voted 6 to 1 against recommending tenure. Plaintiff then withdrew his application. In the fall of 1995, plaintiff again applied for tenure. The tenured faculty in the department voted 4 to 1 against recommending tenure, with two faculty members abstaining. The department head, defendant Bruce Prince, then forwarded a written recommendation against tenure to the dean, defendant Ebadi.
In his recommendation, Dr. Prince explained in detail both the criteria considered in the tenure decision (i.e., teaching, research and collegiality) and the department's evaluation of plaintiff's application in light of those specific criteria. As set forth in Dr. Prince's written recommendation, although the tenured members of the department assessed plaintiff's teaching skills as "generally positive," the faculty had several criticisms about plaintiff's performance in the area of research. In fact, as noted in the recommendation, concerns about plaintiff's research "were the most significant factor in the overall negative response" to plaintiff's application for tenure. Faculty members described plaintiff's research and writing skills as "weak on methodology;" "brochure quality writing;" "barely passes the minimum criteria;" "easy to read;" "common sense statements of existing literature;" and "engages in lots of self-aggrandizement." According to Dr. Prince's assessment, plaintiff "seem[ed] most comfortable writing to a non-academic audience." Dr. Prince also noted that plaintiff's written work "had not been presented in higher tier academic journals."
In his recommendation, Dr. Prince also described the "harshness" of plaintiff's tenured colleagues' criticisms with respect to collegiality. Specifically, Dr. Prince wrote:
Phrases such as "two-faced," "zero collegiality," "superiority complex," "will say one thing and do another," and "will say different things to different people" were easy and unequivocal conclusions for a number of departmental tenured faculty.
By way of example, Dr. Prince highlighted an incident that occurred earlier that fall. Apparently, plaintiff had distributed to all department heads a chart purporting to summarize the productivity of the faculty in the College of Business Administration. The chart was completely unsolicited. In his chart, plaintiff had the highest number of publications. According to Dr. Prince, a closer examination revealed that plaintiff
was more than generous in how he treated himself in that analysis. The data were gleaned from past reports of faculty activities. But, [plaintiff] adds more recent "publications" for himself and does not give all others equal treatment. The report adds together what I see as "apples and oranges" in coming up with the "Total Productivity" measure. Top-tier journal articles and books count the same as regular conference proceedings. Worse yet, "table topic" presentations at the DSI conference ([plaintiff] had three this fall), which are simply paper abstracts (several are presented on a single page), also count the same as books and journal articles.
In short, Dr. Prince concluded that plaintiff's distribution of the document demonstrated poor judgment, served to "unnecessarily irritate people" and "provided an additional concrete basis for many tenured faculty members' perception that [plaintiff] engages in tactless and inaccurate self-promotion."
The college advisory committee on promotion and tenure, consisting of a representative from each of the four departments in the college, reviewed plaintiff's application and voted unanimously against recommending tenure. The written recommendation from the committee chair states, in its entirety, as follows:
The vote was negative. [Plaintiff's] research was described as methodologically weak and lacking in overall quality. He was described as a good teacher but poor colleague within his department. He was characterized as being unable to mentor junior faculty. Two members of the committee described him as engaging in unethical behavior on various occasions. They stated they had first-hand knowledge of these incidents.
Dr. Ebadi then advised plaintiff that, based on the recommendations of plaintiff's departmental faculty, department head, and the College Committee on Promotion and Tenure, he would not recommend plaintiff for promotion and tenure. Dr. Ebadi identified the inadequacy of plaintiff's research program as the "primary reason" for his decision. Plaintiff appealed the denial of his tenure application to the provost, defendant Coffman. In a written response to plaintiff, Dr. Coffman stated, in part, as follows:
In your case, the qualified faculty voted 4 no, 1 yes, and 2 abstaining for both promotion and tenure. In addition, the department head made a negative recommendation, as did the college wide advisory committee and the dean. This is a collective judgment leading to a negative recommendation by the very people most qualified to make it.
The process followed did not violate university policy or procedure. I do not believe discrimination to be involved, having reviewed the ethnic and gender mix of the department and college. I do not believe that all of the faculty and administrators who reviewed your application and made a collective recommendation did not consider the material, or in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.
...defendants denied. Plaintiffs have the burden to identify the rights allegedly violated. Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 527; Babbar v. Ebadi, 36 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1282 (D.Kan. 1998). Elsewhere in the complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants deprived them of their fundamental rights to privacy and......
-
Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.
...L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Plaintiffs have the burden to identify the rights allegedly violated. Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 527; Babbar v. Ebadi, 36 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1282 (D.Kan.1998). Liberally construing plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, plaintiff Watson alleges that defendants deprived her ......
-
Goswami v. DePaul Univ.
...of the plaintiff's abilities and qualifications for tenure, the testimony is found to be irrelevant. See, e.g., Babbar v. Ebadi, 36 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1279 (D.Kan.1998), aff'd 216 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.2000) (finding “an expert report stating that plaintiff, in light of his superior research pro......
-
Ayres v. Ag Processing Inc.
...with contract, not interference with prospective business advantage or relationship. Only one of the cases cited by Defendants, Babbar v. Ebadi,41 addressed a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationships. In Babbar, however, the Court, in ruling on a motion for su......