Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:13-cv-00826-TWP-DML |
| Parties | OTIS B. GRANT, Plaintiff, v. TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, INDIANA UNIVERSITY, INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTH BEND, MICHAEL A. MCROBBIE, UNA MAE CHANCELLOR RECK, and ALFRED J. GUILLAUME, JR., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 108). On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, Otis B. Grant ("Grant"), filed an Amended Complaint alleging twenty-six claims stemming from his termination from Indiana University South Bend ("IUSB"). (Filing No. 24.) On July 6, 2015, this Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal and Judgment on the Pleadings. (Filing No. 128.) Specifically, the Court dismissed claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 as to all Defendants and claims 1-7, 9-10, 13, 17, and 26 against IUSB and for all monetary relief against IUSB President, Michael A. McRobbie ("President McRobbie"), Chancellor Una Mae Reck ("Chancellor Reck"), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Alfred J. Guillaume, Jr. ("Guillaume"). Claims were left pending against President McRobbie, Chancellor Reck, and Guillaume in their official capacities for prospective relief. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
The following facts are reviewed in the light most favorable to Grant, the non-moving party, and the Court draws all reasonable inferences in Grant's favor. See Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The Court notes that Grant did not include a substantive fact section in his response brief and rarely cited specific facts in support of his arguments. Where Grant has cited specific, material facts in his briefing, the Court has included those facts in the following recitation and in the Court's Discussion. However, as discussed in greater detail below, the failure to provide supporting facts dooms many of Grant's claims.
Grant is African American. In May 1999 he was hired by IUSB as an Assistant Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Grant was later granted tenure in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and was an award winning tenured faculty member at IUSB for nearly a decade.
In 2008, several students complained to IUSB administrators about Grant, alleging that he allowed a non-employee to grade papers, used offensive language in class, inappropriately cancelled classes and dismissed two students without proper procedure. (Filing No. 110-6 at 3.) In response, the Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Guillaume, assigned Dean Lynn R. Williams ("Dean Williams") to investigate these issues.
The investigation confirmed several of the students' complaints and Dean Williams prepared a letter recommending sanctions. In the letter, Dean Williams also accused Grant of being "evasive", having "provided false information", and "refus[ing] to provide requested information"during its investigation. (Filing No. 111-3.) Guillaume accepted and implemented Dean Williams' recommended sanctions. In response, Grant filed an informal affirmative action complaint with the University Director of Affirmative Action, alleging that Dean Williams took adverse employment action's against Grant based on racial discrimination. (Filing No. 119-24.) However, Grant did not appeal the sanctions.
In addition to complaining to IUSB's administration, the students also took their complaints to the South Bend Tribune. Thereafter, the newspaper submitted several open records requests to IUSB, including two requests regarding Grant's education and training. (Filing No. 110-5 at 3; Filing No. 110-6 at 3.) Because IUSB is subject to Indiana's Access to Public Records Act, Guillaume began gathering records for a response. (Filing No. 110-6 at 3.) In so doing, Guillaume noted discrepancies Grant's employment records.
Guillaume attempted to obtain clarifications from both Grant and the institutions listed in his application materials. However, these exchanges raised even more concerns. For instance, Guillaume noted that Grant changed the name of the judge for whom he clerked, from "Richard M. Wright" to "Richard M. Rittenband". (cf. Filing No. 110-15 at 1, Filing No. 111-5 at 7.) In addition, Grant changed the name of the institution from where he received a master's degree from the "Gestalt Institute of Psychology" to the "Gestalt Institute in Liverpool". (cf. Filing No. 110-15 at 2, Filing No. 111-5 at 7.) Further, Grant no longer claimed that he was in the doctorate program at Columbia University, contrary to an assertion he made in his letter of application. (cf. Filing No. 110-15 at 1; Filing No. 111-4 at 5.)
Guillaume concluded that Grant "misled the university when he applied for a faculty position by falsifying his academic credentials in numerous and significant ways" and had repeated many of the same falsifications throughout his employment. On September 8, 2009,Guillaume presented his findings to the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee ("FMRC") and recommended that Grant be dismissed for serious misconduct. On October 6, 2009, Grant presented a 47 page response to the FMRC.
On November 4, 2009, the FMRC declined to proceed with a formal hearing. Although the FMRC believed that the issues were "troubling," it viewed the verification of Grant's credentials to be the responsibility of the Search and Screen Committee at the time Grant was hired. (Filing No. 111-8 at 2-3.) Further, the FMRC did not believe a hearing would establish "chronic or substantial incompetence or misconduct" since the charges did not relate to Grant's scholarship, teaching, and service, and noting that a hearing would not likely answer the "serious questions" about events and conduct at the time of hiring. Finally, the FMRC concluded that, even if the allegations against Grant were true, "it cannot be the basis for removal of [Grant's] tenure and dismissal". (Filing No. 111-8 at 2-3.)
Despite the FMRC's recommendation, Guillaume strongly believed the FMRC had reached the wrong decision. (Filing No. 110-6 at 7.) Six months later, on May 10, 2010, Guillaume submitted a recommendation for Grant's dismissal to Chancellor Reck in which he wrote that termination was "appropriate in view of the systemic nature of the misrepresentations and Professor Grant's refusal to acknowledge them." (Filing No. 111-6 at 5). Thereafter, Guillaume had no further involvement in any employment decisions related to Grant.
On September 1, 2010, Chancellor Reck met with Grant to discuss the issues raised in Guillaume's recommendation. (Filing No. 110-5 at 3.) Chancellor Reck asked Grant whether he had new documentation to refute Guillaume's findings. (Filing No. 110-5 at 4.) In response, Grant denied all the charges raised the issue of retaliation because of his affirmative actioncomplaint against Dean Williams; and additionally alleged that Guillaume, who is also an African American, was retaliating against him. Id.
Noting the contradiction between Guillaume's findings and Grant's denials, and additionally noting Grant's discrimination assertions, Chancellor Reck informed Grant that she would hire an outside party to verify his credentials and to provide an independent perspective. (Filing No. 110-5 at 4; Filing No. 110-2 at 9.) On September 10, 2010, Chancellor Reck advised Grant in writing that IUSB had retained Klink & Company ("Klink"), an international consulting and investigative firm, to conduct an independent review of Grant's vita and application materials. (Filing No. 110-5 at 4.) Klink's founder, Mr. Jeffrey Klink, is a former Assistant United States Attorney. (Filing No. 110-8 at 90.) In the interim, Grant provided a 42-page response to Chancellor Reck regarding Guillaume's recommendation for dismissal. (Filing No. 110-5 at 4.) Notably, however, Grant did not include new documentation that would substantiate his credentials. Id.
Five months later, on February 22, 2011, Chancellor Reck received Klink's final report. (Filing No. 110-5 at 5; Filing No. 110-8.) Therein, Klink concluded that Grant's claimed credentials were, in many instances, "vague," "misleading," or "otherwise incorrect". (Filing No. 110-8 at 7.) In addition, Klink noted that Grant had impeded its investigation by not providing consent to verify all employment and educational credentials. Id.
IUSB notes the following discrepancies in Grant's employment documents, either revealed during Klink's investigation or pursuant to this litigation. Where Grant provided responses with accurate citations to the evidence in his summary judgment briefing, the Court has included those as well.
In his 1998 vita, Grant represented the following teaching experience:
(Filing No. 110-15 at 4.) Grant stated that he stopped listing this information in 2003. (Filing No. 111-4 at 4.)
Klink found no evidence to substantiate any of this teaching experience, either as a Lecturer or as a workshop leader teaching courses to contractors. (Filing No. 110-8 at 12-13, 25.) Further, Klink could not verify the existence of an Armed Forces Institute. (Filing No. 110-8 at 25.) Similarly, it was discovered that Boston State College did not exist in 1984-1985, having merged with the University of Massachusetts at Boston in 1982. (Filing No. 110-7 at 10; Filing No. 110-8 at 25.)
Grant admitted that he did not actually work for these institutions, claiming, instead, that he taught...
To continue reading
Request your trial