Jara v. Tenn. State Univ.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2022
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-00131
• Parties: PATRICIO JARA, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

PATRICIO JARA, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

No. 3:20-cv-00131

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

February 3, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELI RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 26, “Motion”). Plaintiff responded to the Motion. (Doc. No. 31). Defendant replied. (Doc. No. 33). The Motion is ripe for review.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff is a native of Chile and an American citizen. (Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 1). He is a tenured professor at Tennessee State University (“Defendant” or “TSU”) and has worked there for approximately one decade. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2). Plaintiff was awarded academic tenure in 2015 and was promoted to Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Mathematics. (Id. at ¶ 3). Plaintiff received multiple salary increases while working for Defendant from 2016 to 2019. (Id. at ¶ 4).

Plaintiff applied to be the Department Chair of Physics and Mathematics in April 2017, and his application was denied. (Doc. No. 31 at 5). Plaintiff was not selected as one of the three finalists for the position. (Doc. No. 32 at ¶¶ 3 5). The Job Announcement stated under the headings “Minimum Qualifications/Experience” and “Required Education-Experience-Skills (Minimum Qualifications)”:

The successful candidate must have an earned doctorate (or the foreign equivalent or its equivalent in training ability, and/or experience) in Mathematics or a closely related field and have sufficient experience and achievement to qualify for the rank of Professor. The successful candidate will have a record of scholarship and research that includes peer-reviewed publications and securing external funding. The candidate should provide evidence of effective leadership experience, exceptional communication and interpersonal skills, and an ability to work productively with faculty and students from diverse backgrounds.

(Doc. No. 29-16 at 3).

The individual who received the job, Dr. McMurray, is an African American individual. (Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 36). On his curriculum vitae (“CV”), Dr. McMurray did not indicate ever having received any grants even though a record of securing external funding was a requirement for the position. (Doc. No. 31 at 5; Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 21). Dr McMurray^[2] testified at his deposition that this was an oversight on his resume and that he did receive a three or four-thousand dollar grant sometime around 2003. (Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 21). Additionally, another finalist for the position was an African American who had a degree in agriculture, instead of mathematics or a related field. (Doc. No. 32 at ¶ 5).

Dr. McMurray had previously served as an Associate Director, Department Head, and Department Chair at other higher education institutions. (Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 32). Defendant's decision to hire Dr. McMurray was based in part on this previous experience as a Department Chair, as well as other leadership and administrative roles. (Id. at ¶ 37). Plaintiff had never served as a Department Chair or Department Head. (Id. at ¶ 9).

Plaintiff complains not only of the decision to not promote him, but also of various incidents that occurred during his employment. In October 2017, a dean employed by Defendant asked some professors to take an “Oral English Proficiency” test which asked about the professors' country of origin, native language/dialect, and the length of time having lived in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 32 at ¶ 6). All faculty in the College of Life and Physical Sciences were asked to participate in this exam. (Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 34). No. penalty or adverse action was taken towards the faculty who did not participate.^[3] (Id. at ¶ 35). Also in 2017, ^[4] Plaintiff was harassed about how he signed his timesheets, and his pay was withheld. (Id. at ¶ 7; Doc. No. 32 at ¶ 1).

In 2017 and 2018, Plaintiff filed multiple complaints with Defendant's Equal Employment Opportunity Office (“EEO Office”) and with Defendant's superiors and administrators. (Id. at ¶ 7). After lodging these complaints, Plaintiff was subjected to various actions:

● Plaintiff was the only professor in his department no longer allowed to teach upper-level courses;

● Plaintiff was removed from the department's curriculum committee;

● Plaintiff was given other committee assignments;

● Plaintiff was not provided with a standard letter of support from a supervisor to help him receive a grant;

● Plaintiff was openly called names such as “incompetent” and “a disgrace” in emails to the faculty;^[5]

● Plaintiff was falsely accused of giving students answers to final exams in advance;

● Plaintiff was screamed at, intimidated, and threatened;^[6]

● An instructor was sent to sit in on Plaintiff's classes for a semester, and Plaintiff was given an evaluation by the instructor;

● Plaintiff was told that there were student complaints about him but was not given access to these complaints.

(Doc. No. 32 at ¶ 8).^[7] Plaintiff believed his work environment was so hostile that he purchased a body camera in 2018 to record instances of harassment. (Id. at ¶ 9).

After filing these formal complaints with the EEO Office in 2017 and 2018, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) (as opposed to the EEO Office on TSU's campus) which was received by the EEOC on November 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 31-9 at ¶ 33; Doc. No. 29-2 at 2). The charge referenced various instances of discrimination due to national origin, including: failure to promote, the Oral English Proficiency exam, his signature on time sheets (and the subsequent withholding of his paycheck), class scheduling and hours, and how others spoke to him. (Doc. No. 29-2 at 2). Plaintiff also referenced his previous complaints to the EEO Office, noting that he had made three written complaints to Human Resources, complaints to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and an email to the President of the University. (Id.). On the charge, Plaintiff checked the boxes for “national origin” discrimination and for “continuing action” (instead of a precise date the events occurred). (Id.).

In Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Additional Material Facts (Doc. No. 31-10), Plaintiff asserted facts indicating that, in general, non-American born professors are treated worse than American-born professors. In particular, citing his own affidavit filed in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 31-4), Plaintiff asserted that American professors in the department of math and physics are assigned to teach significantly fewer classes and class hours than non-American born professors, allowing them more time to have leadership positions and apply for grants. (Doc. No. 31-10 at ¶ 10). Again, citing his affidavit, Plaintiff also asserted that it was undisputed that non-American born professors are not given important leadership or committee positions. (Id. at ¶ 11). In response, Defendant admitted only that “Plaintiff so states, ”, i.e., that Plaintiff claims in his affidavit these things to be true. (Doc. No. 32 at ¶¶ 10-11). But as discussed in a footnote above, by failing to dispute the truth of what Plaintiff states, Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of what Plaintiff states and not merely that (as is obvious in any event) Plaintiff states what he states. Defendant also stated in response: “Plaintiff admitted at deposition that he did not know where all the professors in his department were born.” (Doc. No. 32 at ¶¶ 10-11). In pointing out this admission, Defendant did not deny the facts asserted by Plaintiff; it could be true both that (as conceivably Plaintiff's counsel's investigation could have revealed or conceivably Plaintiff could have intuited based on the knowledge of where most professors were born) American-born professors were given better treatment and that Plaintiff did not personally know, as to all professors (every single professor) whether they were American-born or not. So the facts asserted by Plaintiff are, as noted, deemed admitted. This may seem a harsh result for Defendant, but the ultimate impact of this result is mitigated somewhat by the precise nature of the facts deemed admitted by Defendant; they do not include anything about why American professors were treated better.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings four counts, which the Court will discuss in some detail below. (Doc. No. 1).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “By its very terms this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). In other words, even if genuine, a factual dispute that is irrelevant or unnecessary under applicable law is of no value in defeating a motion for summary judgment. See Id. at 248.

On the other hand, “summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine[.]'” Id.

A fact is “material” within the meaning of Rule 56(c) “if its proof or disproof might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A genuine dispute of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Harris v. Klare, 902 F.3d 630, 634-35 (6th Cir. 2018).

The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the...