Kahan v. Slippery Rock Univ. of Pa.

• Decision Date: 24 September 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 12–407.
• Citation: 50 F.Supp.3d 667
• Parties: Paul KAHAN, Plaintiff, v. SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Eva Tsuquiashi–Daddesio, John Craig, Charlene Winslow, Thomas [E.] Winslow, Sr., Thomas [M.] Winslow, Jr., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

50 F.Supp.3d 667

Paul KAHAN, Plaintiff

v.SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Eva Tsuquiashi–Daddesio, John Craig, Charlene Winslow, Thomas [E.] Winslow, Sr., Thomas [M.] Winslow, Jr., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12–407.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed Sept. 24, 2014.

James B. Lieber, Jacob M. Simon, Lieber, Hammer, Huber, & Bennington, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.

Thomas L. Donahoe, Office of Attorney General, Joseph L. Luvara, James R. Miller, Linda V. Hernandez, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CONTI, Chief Judge.

This is a civil rights, employment, and common law tort case in which Paul Kahan (“Kahan”) accuses his former employer, Slippery Rock University (“SRU”), several of its individual employees, and the husband and son of one of its employees, of wrongfully either failing to renew his teaching contract, or causing that contract not to be renewed. Under federal law, Kahan asserts gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e –2000e–17 (“Title VII”), and 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”), and constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his equal protection, free speech, and due process rights. Kahan additionally asserts companion employment discrimination claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 951 –963 (the “PHRA”), and Pennsylvania common law claims of promissory estoppel, intentional interference with contract, and malicious prosecution, as well as a statutory defamation claim pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8341. Kahan seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, back and front pay, attorneys' fees, and all other available damages.

SRU, and its co-defendant employees, filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 77.) The co-defendant employees are: (1) Eva Tsuquiashi–Daddesio, Interim Dean of SRU's College of Humanities, Fine and Performing Arts (“Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio”); (2) John Craig, Chairman of SRU's History Department (“Craig”); and (3) Charlene Winslow, SRU's History Department's secretary (“Mrs. Winslow”), (collectively, with SRU, the “SRU Defendants” and collectively, but without SRU, the “Individual SRU Defendants”). The SRU Defendants filed a brief in support of their motion, (ECF No. 78), a concise statement of material facts, (ECF No. 79), an appendix, (ECF No. 80), and a response to Kahan's counterstatement of material facts, (ECF No. 116). Separate motions for summary judgment, and supporting briefs, statements of fact, appendices, and responses to Kahan's counterstatement of material facts, were filed by Thomas E. Winslow, (ECF Nos. 81–84, and 118), and Thomas M. Winslow, (ECF No. 85–88, and 119). Thomas E. Winslow is Mrs. Winslow's husband and will be referred to throughout this opinion as “Mr. Winslow.” Thomas M. Winslow is Mr. and Mrs. Winslow's son, and was a student at SRU during the pertinent time period. He will be referred to throughout this opinion as “Tommy Winslow.”

In response to each of the three motions for summary judgment, Kahan filed an opposition brief, appendices, and a statement of material facts that both responded to each movant's concise statement of material facts and included a separate counterstatement of material facts. (ECF Nos. 99–101, 103–05, 107–09.) After the close of briefing, the parties submitted joint concise statements of material facts for each of the three respective summary judgment motions. (ECF Nos. 120–22.)

For the reasons that follow in this memorandum opinion, judgment will be entered against Kahan on each of his federal claims. Because no claim that arises under federal law survives summary judgment, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania common law and statutory claims. Those claims will be dismissed, without prejudice to Kahan's right to raise them in state court.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

All material facts set forth herein are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. Additional material facts may be discussed elsewhere in this memorandum opinion, in context. Because three separate motions for summary judgment are pending, there are three separate combined concise statements of material fact. The combined concise statement of material facts related to the SRU Defendants' motion for summary judgment, which is docketed at ECF No. 122, will be referred to in the format “ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ x.” The combined concise statement of material facts related to Mr. Winslow's motion for summary judgment, which is docketed at ECF No. 120, will be referred to in the format “ECF No. 120, Mr. Winslow CCSMF ¶ x.” The combined concise statement of material facts related to Tommy Winslow's motion for summary judgment, which is docketed at ECF No. 121, will be referred to in the format “ECF No. 121, Tommy Winslow CCSMF ¶ x.”

A. Kahan's Employment with SRU

1. Non–Renewal of Kahan's One–Year Contract

Kahan was selected for the position of Assistant Professor in SRU's Department of History in February 2009. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 1.) The chairman of the history department, Craig, did not concur with the majority vote of the department, and preferred to hire a different candidate, Daniel Barr, who is also a male. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 30, 70; ECF No. 80–5 at 2 (Craig memo).) Kahan was hired to replace a male professor. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 1, 69.) Kahan's notice of appointment indicated that he would begin teaching in August 2009, and was a probationary, tenure-track professor whose one-year contract was subject to renewal based upon various conditions, including adherence to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (the “CBA”). (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 1–2, 31; ECF No. 80–1 at 43–58(CBA); ECF No. 80–1 at 40–41 (offer letter and appointment notice).)

Decisions with respect to renewal of probationary teaching contracts, such as Kahan's contract, were based upon evaluations and recommendations made by the history department's evaluation committee, the history department's chairman, the dean of the college of humanities, and the provost and president of SRU. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 3, 21, 33.) Kahan was entitled to written notice of SRU's decision with respect to renewal of his one-year contract no later than April 1, 2010. (ECF No. 80–1 at 56–57 (CBA, Art. 14, § A(4)(a)(1)).) Article 12 of the CBA sets forth the standards to be applied when evaluating probationary professors. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 3, 32; ECF No. 80–1 at 56 (CBA, Art. 14, § A(3)).) The first evaluation criterion is “effective teaching and fulfillment of professional responsibilities,” the latter of which includes submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion, and attending faculty meetings. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 4; ECF No. 80–1 at 48 (CBA, Art. 12, § B(1)).) The other two evaluation criteria are “continued scholarly growth” and “service contributions to SRU or the community.” (ECF No. 80–1 at 48–49 (CBA, Art. 14 § B(2) and (3)).)

On February 1, 2010, Craig, as chair of the history department, completed a performance review report, in which he favorably commented on Kahan's performance in all three areas of evaluation. (ECF No. 80–3 at 18–20 (Craig report); ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 22.) Craig's report ultimately concluded that Kahan's contract should be renewed. (Id. ) On February 8, 2010, the history department evaluation committee completed its performance review report, in which it evaluated Kahan in the areas of service, scholarship, and teaching. (ECF No. 80–3 at 14–16 (committee report); ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 22.) The committee's report was also favorable to Kahan, while noting the recommendation was “tentative” and “preliminary” because Kahan had been teaching at SRU for less than six months at the time of its submission. (ECF No. 80–3 at 15 (committee report); ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 22.) Based upon these two reports, and supporting materials submitted by Kahan, Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio recommended renewal of Kahan's one-year probationary teaching contract in a letter to Kahan dated March 2, 2010. (ECF No. 80–3 at 22 (Dean's letter).) On that same date, Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio notified Dr. William Williams, provost and vice president for academic affairs (“Provost Williams”), of her favorable recommendation. (ECF No. 80–3 at 23 (Dean memo).)

Three days later, on March 5, 2010, SRU's academic records office sent a memorandum to Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio notifying her that Kahan was the only faculty member within her college who failed to submit spring 2010 semester mid-term grades by the March 4, 2010 deadline. (ECF No. 80–3 at 37 (memo); ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 12.) Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio had not received a similar memorandum from the academic records office concerning Kahan's submission of mid-term grades for the fall 2009 semester, but came to learn in March 2010 that Kahan only met that deadline because an academic records office staff member, who called Kahan to inform him that his grades were late, agreed to input Kahan's grades into the computer system on his behalf if he faxed them to the academic records office. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 7, 141; ECF No. 101–4 at 46–47 (Craig draft memo); ECF No. 101–13 (Kahan decl.) ¶ 28.) March 5, 2010 was the last day that SRU was in session before spring break. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 13.) Craig and Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio spoke about Kahan's tardy submission of mid-term grades, and other performance problems, on Monday, March 15, 2010, the day that classes resumed at SRU following spring break. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶¶ 13–15, 125.) Craig orally informed Dean Tsuquiashi–Daddesio on March 15, 2010, that he no longer supported renewal of Kahan's one-year contract. (ECF No. 122, SRU CCSMF ¶ 125.)

Following this...