Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chi.

Decision Date06 May 2016
Docket NumberNo. 15–2079.,15–2079.
Citation821 F.3d 855
PartiesJoseph S. ROBERTS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Jamie S. Franklin, Attorney, The Franklin Law Firm LLC, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Ruth F. Masters, Attorney, Oak Park, IL, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before BAUER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON,* District Judge.

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellee, Columbia College Chicago (Columbia), terminated plaintiff-appellant, Professor Joseph Roberts (Roberts), after it discovered that Roberts plagiarized several chapters in a textbook that he composed in 2004. Roberts filed suit against Columbia and several Columbia faculty members. In his complaint, Roberts pleaded multiple theories of recovery. All defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Roberts appealed the grant of summary judgment in regards to his claims for breach of contract and age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's ruling.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Textbook

Columbia hired Roberts in 1999 as a tenure-track professor in the Arts, Entertainment and Media Management Department (AEMM Department). Roberts achieved tenured status in 2003. His tenure rights were secured by a contract entitled “Columbia College Chicago Statement of Policy on Academic Freedom, Faculty Status, Tenure, and Due Process” (the “Statement of Policy”).

In late 2003, Roberts believed there were no good, reasonably priced textbooks on the subject of economics as applied to the arts. So, he began creating a new custom textbook with the help of his AEMM Department colleague Clark Greene and several graduate students in the AEMM Department. This process involved working with a publishing company to compile materials from other textbooks into one new custom textbook. Roberts worked with publisher McGraw–Hill and used materials from three current textbooks: Issues in Economics Today by Robert Guell; Economics is Everywhere by Daniel Hamermesh; and Basic Economic Concepts by Werner Sichel and Peter Eckstein. The final product, Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers, consisted primarily of the copied material from the three textbooks. Roberts and Clarke Greene also prepared original material, such as the first chapter.

Roberts testified in his deposition that he sent McGraw–Hill photocopies of the three covers of the textbooks, reference sections, and copyright sections. When his textbook was published, however, the cover was titled: Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers: with selected material from Issues in Economics Today and Economics is Everywhere. The cover also lists the following authors in order: Dr. Joseph S. Roberts, Robert C. Guell, and Daniel S. Hamermesh. The textbook does not reference or cite Basic Economic Concepts by Sichel and Eckstein. Further, the inside cover page states, “Peer review, class testing, and accuracy are primarily the responsibility of the author(s).”

Roberts intended to use Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers for his 2004 fall semester class. He requested a final proof of the textbook from McGraw–Hill prior to its publication, but never received one. Instead, the first time Roberts saw the completed textbook was when he purchased it at Columbia's bookstore, after his students for the 2004 fall semester had arrived in class with the textbook already purchased. Upon reviewing it, Roberts noticed several errors, such as omitting the reference to Basic Economic Concepts by Sichel and Eckstein, as well as the lack of reference pages at the end of each chapter.

Roberts testified that after he identified the errors, he made a phone call to McGraw–Hill to inform the publisher of the problem, but did not send a follow-up letter or email detailing the issues. He also provided his students with a corrected reference page. He understood at that time that not citing the Sichel and Eckstein textbook was a “serious error” and created a “big problem” for his book. Ultimately, Roberts and several other colleagues decided to never use Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers again due to the errors and its price. Roberts made no further efforts to ensure McGraw–Hill corrected the omission.

Sometime around either December 2005 or January 2006, Roberts approached graduate student Nissan Wasfie (“Wasfie”), and asked for his assistance updating Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers. Roberts intended to correct the original textbook's reference errors in the updated version. Wasfie agreed to help, however, the updated version never came to fruition because a dispute arose over money that Roberts allegedly owed Wasfie. The original publication was never corrected.

Roberts updated his curriculum vitae in 2009 and 2011. Both times he listed Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers under his list of publications.

B. Roberts' Age Discrimination Evidence

In 2010, Roberts served on a search committee to name the AEMM Department Chairperson. The committee identified who they believed was the best candidate, but that individual refused the position due to issues regarding the terms of employment. Eliza Nichols, the Dean of the School of Fine and Performing Arts at Columbia (“Nichols”), then called the individual members of the search committee and asked them to approve Philippe Ravanas (“Ravanas”) as the new chairperson, which each member did. Roberts testified that Ravanas was the committee's “reluctant second choice,” and that Roberts wished the committee was able to convene as a whole prior to making the decision.

Contention arose between Roberts and Ravanas sometime after Ravanas was appointed the AEMM Department Chairperson. Ravanas commented that Roberts and other older members of the faculty did not fit the “image” that Ravanas desired to create, as he wanted to portray a “young and hip look for the program.” At that time, Roberts was about fifty years old. Ravanas also removed a photograph of Roberts from the online directory because he believed it did not project the look he wanted for the AEMM Department. In addition, two other tenured professors of the AEMM Department submitted sworn testimony that Ravanas was “hostile” towards older members of the faculty.

Ravanas had other disputes with Roberts as well. On February 23, 2011, Ravanas sent Roberts an email asking him to explain why Roberts received a $250 per month cellphone allowance from Columbia when no other professor did, why Roberts submitted a request for $950 to cover a membership fee for an organization when that organization's website listed the fee as $125, and why Roberts identified himself as associated with the Coleman Foundation after the AEMM Department had cut ties with the group. On April 12, 2011, Ravanas sent Roberts another email questioning why Roberts was listed on the Coleman Foundation's website, why the Self Employment in the Arts Conference website listed Roberts as having a PhD in Entrepreneurship when it was actually in Education, and why Roberts' biography on the AEMM Department website indicated he designed entrepreneurship programs for inner-city neighborhoods when he had not provided this information to the Department before. Roberts responded that he would contact the websites and ask them to correct the information.

C. Plagiarism Investigation

At some point in 2004, before Roberts published Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers, Wasfie noticed graduate students in Roberts' office had open textbooks on Roberts' desk and were typing from them. Wasfie became suspicious that Roberts had committed plagiarism, but did not mention this to anyone at that time.

Wasfie developed a brain tumor in the fall of 2010, and went on leave from December 2010 through March 2011 to recover from brain surgery. Wasfie testified that while on leave, he reflected on “life in general,” “justice,” and “doing what's right.” He decided during this time to investigate whether Roberts had plagiarized Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers. He went to the library to research his suspicions, and eventually compared Roberts' textbook with Basic Economic Concepts by Sichel and Eckstein.

In mid-March 2011, Wasfie approached Ravanas with the results of his investigation. He informed Ravanas that a significant part of Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers was unattributed. Wasfie also provided Ravanas with a copy of Roberts' textbook and information regarding the unattributed sections from Sichel and Eckstein's Basic Economic Concepts.

In his deposition, Roberts testified that he had indicated the reference error to Wasfie years earlier when Roberts sought Wasfie's assistance with updating the textbook. Roberts also testified that he did not think Wasfie harbored any antagonism towards him, and he believed that someone “put [Wasfie] up to” informing the faculty of Roberts' plagiarism. Roberts acknowledged that he had no evidence other than his own speculations as to whether Ravanas, or anyone else, coerced or induced Wasfie to make the plagiarism allegation against him.

After Wasfie informed Ravanas of the plagiarism, Ravanas compared Roberts' Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers with Sichel and Eckstein's Basic Economic Concepts. He concluded that eight chapters from Roberts' textbook consisted almost entirely of unattributed excerpts from the Sichel and Eckstein textbook. This amounted to approximately 10,000 unattributed words total. He prepared a written memorandum detailing his findings. Ravanas forwarded the memorandum to Nichols in early April 2011, who then reviewed the memorandum and compared the relevant textbooks. Nichols also concluded that plagiarism had occurred and informed the vice president for academic affairs, the provost, and the general counsel's office about her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Crenshaw v. Erskine Coll.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 9, 2020
    ...been breached" and "would make a sham of the parties’ contractual tenure arrangement." Id. at 68. See also Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chicago , 821 F.3d 855, 862-63 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding a provision in the private college's handbook outlining internal review procedures did not prevent ter......
  • Dobosz v. Quaker Chem. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • August 16, 2016
    ...method, a plaintiff asserting an ADEA claim can proceed by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence. See Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 821 F.3d 855, 865 (7th Cir. 2016). Direct evidence is evidence that, "if believed by the finder of fact, will prove the particular fact in question wi......
  • Saccameno v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 1, 2019
    ...(2) substantial performance by the plaintiff; (3) a breach by the defendant; and (4) resultant damages.’ " Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chicago , 821 F.3d 855, 863 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Ins. Co. , 351 Ill.App.3d 752, 286 Ill.Dec. 734, 814 N.E.2d 960, ......
  • Yuhe Diamba Wembi v. Metro Air Serv., 14 C 10407, 15 C 464
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 18, 2016
    ...498, 504 (7th Cir.2004) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chi. , 821 F.3d 855, 865 (7th Cir.2016) ; Harper , 748 F.3d at 765 ; Morgan , 724 F.3d at 995 ; Coleman , 667 F.3d at 860 ; Everett , 655 F.3d at 729. The re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Proving age discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • April 28, 2022
    ...causation. That cannot be so.” Woods v. City of Berwyn , 803 F.3d 865, 869 (7th Cir.2015). See also Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago , 821 F.3d 855, 865-66 (7th Cir. 2016). A co-worker’s discriminatory statements can be imputed to the decision-maker if the employee can demonstrate that t......

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