Moini v. Leblanc, Case No. 1:19-cv-03126 (TNM)

• Decision Date: 24 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:19-cv-03126 (TNM)
• Parties: Mehdi MOINI, Plaintiff, v. Thomas J. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as President, George Washington University, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

456 F.Supp.3d 34

Mehdi MOINI, Plaintiff,

v.Thomas J. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as President, George Washington University, Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-03126 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed April 24, 2020

Mehdi Moini, McLean, VA, pro se.

Daniel I. Prywes, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

George Washington University (the "University") denied tenure to Mehdi Moini, Ph.D. Moini, proceeding pro se , alleges that this decision violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the D.C. Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He also claims that the University breached its contractual obligations. University President Thomas J. LeBlanc ("the President") moves to dismiss the Complaint. The Court finds that Moini's claims under Title VII and the DCHRA are time-barred, so it will dismiss them. But the Court will not dismiss his other claims. Given the liberal pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs, Moini has alleged enough facts at this stage to proceed with his § 1981 claim and his contract claims. The Court will thus grant in part and deny in part the President's motion to dismiss.

I.

Moini describes himself as "a Middle Eastern (Iranian)" individual. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1. He holds a doctorate in chemistry from Michigan State University. Id. ¶ 24. From 1987 to 2014, he held several academic and research positions, including at the Smithsonian Institution. Id. ; Compl. Exs. at 282,¹ ECF No. 1-5. He joined the faculty of George Washington University in 2014 as a tenure-track associate professor in the Department of Forensic Sciences. Compl. ¶ 25. The appointment was for a period of three and a half years, so he would receive a tenure decision no later than June 2017. Id.

In accepting the position, Moini agreed to "the conditions stated in the Faculty Code and Faculty Handbook." Id. ¶ 12. The Code contains the criteria for tenure. Id. ¶ 13. As of 2015, it provided that "tenure is reserved for members of the faculty who demonstrate excellence in scholarship, teaching, and engagement in service and who show promise of continued excellence." Id. The lynchpin of this case is the "excellence in teaching" criterion.

Moini alleges that he built a strong record in all areas—scholarship, teaching, and service. Id. ¶¶ 28–30. For example, he published nine peer-reviewed papers, collaborated with federal agencies, and gave presentations at local schools. Id. ¶¶ 28–29. And many colleagues and students have praised his teaching. Id. ¶ 30. But he acknowledges that student evaluations from a graduate seminar he taught were "relatively poor" and "below departmental averages." Id. ¶¶ 2, 31.

This seminar is mandatory for graduate students, and Moini describes it as "quite demanding." Id. ¶¶ 2, 10. For a time, he co-taught the course with a colleague, Professor Rowe, who "received similar negative student evaluations." Id. ¶ 31. Soon after Rowe stepped down as a co-instructor, he received a promotion to Department Chair. Id. ¶¶ 26, 33.

Moini submitted his tenure application in September 2016, which triggered a multi-step review process. Id. ¶¶ 17, 32. First, a committee of tenured faculty in the Department of Forensic Sciences "unanimously" recommended tenure. Id. ¶ 35. This recommendation went to the Personnel Committee for the University's College of Arts and Sciences. Id. ¶ 36. The Personnel Committee was to provide its "independent concurrence or nonconcurrence" with the Department's recommendation and to identify any "compelling reasons" for nonconcurrence. Compl. Exs. at 29. It voted five to two against tenure, with two abstentions. Compl. ¶ 37. According to Moini, the Committee focused on the negative student evaluations from his graduate seminar. Id.

The next stop was the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Id. Like the Personnel Committee, he disagreed with the Department's recommendation of tenure. Id. The Dean allegedly cited "a disaffected student's unhappy reaction to the [graduate seminar] as the deciding piece of evidence that Moini lacks excellence as a teacher." Id. (quoting Compl. Exs. at 9).

The Provost also disagreed with the Department's recommendation of tenure. Id. He concluded that Moini had "not yet achieved the teaching standard commensurate with a ... grant of tenure." Id. ¶ 38. (quoting Compl. Exs. at 3).

Since the Provost did not concur with the Department's recommendation, he referred the matter to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. Id. ; Compl. Exs. at 39. This body voted against tenure, too. Compl. ¶ 39. Finally, the University President reviewed Moini's case for a "final decision." Id. ¶ 37; Compl. Exs. at 39–40. He decided against tenure. Compl. ¶ 37.

So, after six of levels of review, one body—the Departmental Committee—recommended tenure. The subsequent five reviewers—the College's Personnel Committee, the Dean, the Provost, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, and the President—did not. The Provost informed Moini by letter dated June 22, 2017, that "the decision ha[d] been made not to extend tenure" to him. Compl. Exs. at 5. The letter also stated that Moini's appointment for the 2017–2018 academic year would be "a terminal one." Id.

Moini soon began a grievance process. Compl. ¶ 41. He first sought an informal resolution. Id. ; Compl. Exs. at 44. The University offered to extend Moini's appointment by one semester, but Moini rejected this and brought a formal grievance. Compl. ¶ 41.

He made two allegations. First, he claimed that the University had violated the Faculty Code because it did not give him "sufficient notice" that his student evaluations were poor enough to put his tenure at risk. Id. Second, he complained that the denial of tenure was "arbitrary and capricious" because it was "primarily based on student evaluations of a one-credit graduate seminar course, ignoring all other teaching metrics." Id. ¶ 43.

A three-member Hearing Panel reviewed Moini's grievance and upheld the denial of tenure by a split vote. Id. ¶ 44. For the panel majority, while there was "no serious challenge to his record of research and scholarship," his teaching was "short of excellent." Compl. Exs. at 6. Based "primarily" on the student evaluations from Moini's graduate seminar, the Panel concluded that he had "not demonstrated a readiness to adapt his teaching to the students he actually has." Id. The dissenting member criticized the heavy reliance on the student evaluations. Id. at 7–9. He cited the College's own memorandum of guidance stating that "[s]tudent evaluations ... are an imperfect tool for measuring teaching evidence and quality." Id. at 7.

An Appeals Panel unanimously reversed the Hearing Panel's decision, finding it "seriously erroneous." Compl. ¶ 46; Compl. Exs. at 53. In its view, the denial of tenure was "arbitrary and capricious" because it was "based solely on student evaluations of a one-credit hour required seminar course, with no other supporting documentation." Compl. Exs. at 54. The record, it noted, included "letters from Dr. Moini's graduate students who secured good jobs upon graduation, praising Dr. Moini, along with acceptable student evaluations from [his] other courses, and favorable peer reviews of his teaching." Id. So the Appeals Panel recommended granting him tenure. Id. at 53.

But that was not the end. The Provost has authority to reject the recommendation of the Appeals Panel, and he did so here. Compl. ¶ 49. Among the "compelling reasons" for doing so was the Code's "excellence in teaching" standard, which, in his view, the Appeals Panel had not applied correctly. Compl. Exs. at 687–91.

The Provost then forwarded Moini's grievance to the University's Board of Trustees for the final say. Compl. ¶ 53. The Board "voted to uphold the university's decision against tenure." Compl. Exs. at 760. The University informed Moini of the Board's decision on September 19, 2018. Id.

The next year, on April 14, Moini sent an "initial inquiry" to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id. at 763. He then filed a formal Charge of Discrimination on July 12. Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 50 ("Def.’s Mem."), ECF No. 6-1. He alleged that the University had discriminated against him based on "national origin." Id. at 51. The EEOC soon mailed him a Notice of Right to Sue, Compl. Exs. at 772, which he received on July 19, Compl. ¶ 55.

Within three months, Moini sued. He claims violations of Title VII and the DCHRA (Count I), as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count III). Id. ¶¶ 84, 88. He also alleges that the University "breached its contractual obligations" by denying him tenure "without providing him notice of putative concerns regarding his teaching." Id. ¶ 86 (Count II). For the same reason, he asserts that the University "breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" (Count IV). Id. ¶ 90.² He seeks reinstatement, tenure, back pay, and damages. Id. at 42–43.

II.

The President moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1, ECF No. 6. To survive this motion, a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

In assessing plausibility, the Court may consider only "the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [it] may take judicial notice." Hurd v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 671, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2017). And it must generally "accept as true all of the complaint's factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff[ ]." Owens v. BNP Paribas, S.A. , 897 F.3d 266, 272 (D.C. Cir. 2018...