Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.

Decision Date31 August 2017
Docket NumberNo. 16-1958.,16-1958.
Citation870 F.3d 562
Parties Otis B. GRANT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Otis B. Grant, Pro Se, Granger, IN, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Damon R. Leichty, Richard Holtzman Hedrick, Attorney, Attorney, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, South Bend, IN, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Indiana University South Bend dismissed tenured Professor Otis Grant in 2011 for "serious misconduct" based on misrepresentations in his curriculum vitae. Grant sued the University, Trustees, and several University employees, filing twenty-six claims arising out of his termination. The district court partially granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and later granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims.

On appeal, Grant contends that the district court inappropriately granted summary judgment on five claims. Grant, who is African American, maintains that the University: (1) discriminated against him on the basis of race; (2) retaliated against him for his complaints against two University officials; (3) denied him due process of law; (4) defamed him in the South Bend Tribune ; and (5) breached a contract created by the University's handbook. In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Grant, we find that Grant has failed to produce admissible evidence demonstrating there exists any disputed issue of fact as to these five claims. So we affirm the district court's judgment in the defendants' favor.


Otis Grant was a professor at Indiana University South Bend ("IUSB") from 1999 until his dismissal in 2011. During that time, he was granted tenure in the College of Arts and Sciences and won several awards. But in 2008, several students complained to University administration that Grant in-appropriately cancelled classes, used obscene language in class, dismissed two students from his course without following proper procedure, and had permitted a non-employee to grade student work and access academic records.

Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Alfred J. Guillaume, Jr., assigned Dean Lynn R. Williams to investigate the complaints. As a result of his investigation, Williams recommended that Grant be denied access to the College of Arts and Sciences travel funds for the fiscal year and a salary increase for 2009–10. Williams also accused Grant of being evasive and refusing to provide information or providing false information during the investigation. Guillaume accepted and implemented the recommended sanctions. Grant then filed an affirmative action complaint with the University's Director of Affirmative Action, alleging Williams took an adverse employment action against Grant because of his race.

Meanwhile, the students had also reported their concerns to the local newspaper, the South Bend Tribune . The newspaper submitted several open records requests to the University, including two relating to Grant's education and training. Guillaume began collecting records for a response, as the University is subject to Indiana's Access to Public Records Act. In doing so, Guillaume noticed discrepancies in Grant's employment records and attempted to obtain clarification. But Guillaume's exchange with both Grant and the institutions listed on Grant's application materials only raised more concerns. For example, over the course of his employment at IUSB, Grant had changed the name of the judge for whom he clerked from "Richard M. Wright" to "Richard M. Rittenband" and changed the name of the institution from which he received a master's degree from the "Gestalt Institute of Psychology" to the "Gestalt Institute in Liverpool."

A. Faculty Misconduct Review Committee

Guillaume determined that Grant "misled the university when he applied for a faculty position by falsifying his academic credentials in numerous and significant ways" and repeated such misrepresentations throughout his employment. Guillaume presented his findings to the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee ("FMRC") on September 8, 2009, and recommended that Grant be dismissed for serious personal misconduct. Grant was notified and he responded on October 6, 2009.

On November 4, 2009, the FMRC issued a written recommendation in which it declined to proceed with a formal hearing, though it noted that the issues were "troubling." The FMRC reasoned that verification of Grant's credentials had been the responsibility of the Search and Screen Committee at the time Grant was hired, and it thought that a hearing was not likely to establish "chronic or substantial incompetence or misconduct" as the charges did not relate to Grant's scholarship or teaching. The FMRC also concluded that, even if the allegations against Grant were true, they could not be the basis for dismissal and removal of Grant's tenure. Six months later, on May 10, 2010, Guillaume submitted a recommendation for Grant's dismissal to IUSB Chancellor Uma Mae Reck based on his strong belief that the FMRC had reached the wrong decision. After that, Guillaume had no further involvement in any employment decisions concerning Grant.

B. Investigation and Termination

Reck met with Grant to discuss Guillaume's recommendation for dismissal on September 1, 2010. Grant denied all charges and alleged Guillaume was retaliating against him for filing the affirmative action complaint against Williams. Because of Grant's allegations of discrimination and the contradictory assertions by Guillaume and Grant regarding Grant's credentials, the University, through its counsel, hired an independent investigation firm, Klink & Company ("Klink"). Reck informed Grant in writing that Klink had been retained to conduct its own review of Grant's curriculum vitae ("CV") and application materials. Meanwhile, Grant provided a 42–page response to Reck regarding Guillaume's recommendation for dismissal. However, he did not include any new documentation to substantiate his credentials.

Reck received Klink's final report on February 22, 2011. Klink noted that Grant had impeded its investigation by failing to provide consent to verify his employment and educational credentials. Klink concluded that many of Grant's credentials were "vague," "misleading," or "otherwise incorrect." For example, in his 1998 CV, Grant represented that he was a lecturer or instructor at California State College, Howard University, the Armed Forces Institute, and Boston State College. Grant eventually admitted he did not actually work for these institutions, but rather taught workshops lasting only two or three days on their campuses. But Klink was unable to find any evidence to substantiate Grant's claims that he was a lecturer, instructor, or workshop leader at any of these institutions. Klink detailed several other discrepancies, including Grant's representation at the time of his application that he was enrolled and pursuing a PhD at Columbia University, representations on his 1998 CV regarding his master's degree, claimed fellowships and law clerk experience, and discrepancies relating to a letter of recommendation.1

On March 8, Reck provided the Klink report to Grant, who, on April 25, responded with a 43–page response denying its findings. Grant again failed to provide documentation to support his representations or to contradict the report's findings. Thereafter, Reck made several attempts to meet with Grant. On September 13, 2011, after more than twenty failed attempts to contact Grant, Reck informed Grant that she found he had "engaged in serious personal and professional misconduct[,]" which "present[ed] a severe threat to the academic integrity and reputation of the University." R. 110–10 at 2.2 Under the University's Academic Handbook, personal misconduct includes dishonest conduct "not limited to, false accusation of misconduct, forgery, alteration or misuse of any university document, record or identification; and giving to a university official information known to be false." R. 119–6 at 36. Reck notified Grant that he was dismissed from the faculty effective December 31, 2011. The decision to terminate Grant was never submitted to the University Senate Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment Committee.

Reck informed Grant that, pursuant to the University's Academic Handbook, he could request a hearing. The next day, Grant suggested that he planned to appeal Reck's decision. On September 26, 2011, Reck reminded Grant that he should submit his appeal as soon as possible to allow for a hearing before his date of dismissal. On December 19, 2011, just days before his December 31 dismissal date, Grant submitted a 283–page grievance to the Faculty Board of Review ("Faculty Board"). But, again, Grant provided no documentation to substantiate his credentials or dispute Klink's findings.

Beginning in January 2012, the Faculty Board gathered information from Reck and Grant and attempted to schedule a hearing. Eight months later, on August 1, 2012, Grant confirmed with the Faculty Board Chair that he still wished to have a hearing in his case. After weeks of unsuccessful attempts to find a mutually agreeable time for the hearing, Grant terminated the Faculty Board process on August 28, 2012 by indicating that he no longer wished to have a hearing.

C. District Court Proceedings

Grant filed suit against Guillaume, Reck, President Michael A. McRobbie, Indiana University, Indiana University South Bend, and the Trustees of Indiana University (collectively "the defendants") in connection with his termination. In his First Amended Complaint, Grant alleged twenty-six causes of action. The district court partially granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
888 cases
  • Kaplan v. Univ. of Louisville
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 18, 2021
    ...a terminated employee received all the process he was due. See Gilbert , 520 U.S. at 935–36, 117 S.Ct. 1807 ; Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ. , 870 F.3d 562, 572 (7th Cir. 2017) (concluding there was "no value to additional procedural safeguards" where the tenured professor met with university ......
  • Mercury Sightseeing Boats, Inc. v. Cnty. of Cook
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 22, 2019 the case. See Nelson v. Colorado , 581 U.S. ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1249, 1256, 197 L.Ed.2d 611 (2017) ; Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University , 870 F.3d 562, 572 (7th Cir. 2017) ("In considering the second factor, the evidence shows Grant was afforded notice and a detailed explanation o......
  • Rodriguez v. City of Chi.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 27, 2019
    ...of inferences supported by admissible evidence, not those ‘supported by only speculation or conjecture.’ " Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ. , 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Rule 56(a)"mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for disco......
  • G.P. v. Claypool
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 12, 2020
    ...of inferences supported by admissible evidence, not those ‘supported by only speculation or conjecture.’ " Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ. , 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Rule 56(a) "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for disc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT