Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01931/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arizona Board of Regents
Defendant
Arizona State University
Defendant
Michael Crow
Defendant
Joochul Kim
Plaintiff
John Meunier
Defendant
Alvin Mushkatel
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joochul Kim, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Board of Regents, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1931-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint asserting claims for national origin

discrimination (Count I), race discrimination (Count II) and retaliation (Count III), all under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., race and national origin

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count IV), and violation of civil rights under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V). Defendants are the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State

University, Michael Crow, John Meunier, and Alvin Mushkatel. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff's claims

in Counts I through III based on Title VII and his § 1981 claim in Count IV are asserted

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l

Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993).

- 2 -

against Defendants Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona State University.1

 Plaintiff's §

1983 claim in Count V is asserted against Defendants Crow, Meunier and Mushkatel. 

The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment with appropriate

responses, replies and statements of supporting facts. (Doc. 53-56, 58-62). The Court heard

oral argument on the cross motions for summary judgment on September 8, 2006 and now

enters this Order.

I.

Standard of Review.

A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if the evidence shows "that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). To defeat the motion, the non-moving

party must show that there are genuine factual issues "that properly can be resolved only by

a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986). The party opposing

summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party's]

pleadings, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."

Rule 56(e). See also, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-

87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986). 

II.

Background Facts.

Plaintiff is an Associate Professor in the School of Planning at Arizona State

University ("ASU"). The School of Planning is in the College of Environmental Design,

formerly the School of Architecture. Plaintiff has been employed with ASU since 1980. He

was promoted from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure in 1985. As a professor of

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

urban planning, Plaintiff's focus was on research in Korean and Asian urban planning and

development. 

In 1987, Plaintiff returned from a sabbatical year in Korea. When Plaintiff returned

to ASU, Defendant John Meunier had been hired as the Dean of the College of Architecture.

Plaintiff felt something was against him from Dean Meunier's office. Plaintiff opposed Dean

Meunier's hiring of Dr. Frederick "Fritz" Steiner as the new director of the School of

Planning. Plaintiff felt singled out by Dean Meunier and Dr. Steiner thereafter.

In January 1990, Plaintiff began working on special projects for the President of the

University, Lattie Coor. Plaintiff continued in this arrangement until President Coor retired

in 2000. It was Plaintiff's intent to become a provost of the University by working on special

projects outside the School of Planning. During this ten-year period, Plaintiff taught few

courses in the School of Planning. The School used Plaintiff's salary savings to hire faculty

associates and to replace Plaintiff. 

In August of 2000, Plaintiff applied to be full professor in the School of Planning.

Following university procedure, Plaintiff's application was considered by six levels of

review. Each level reviewed the application de novo but with access to the reports of each

preceding level. The review was based on the application and materials Plaintiff submitted

on his scholarship, teaching, and service. The six levels of review are as follows: (1) the

School Personnel Committee consisting of all tenured professors in the School of Planning;

(2) the Director of the School of Planning; (3) the College Personnel Committee consisting

of one representative from each of the three schools within the College; (4) the Dean of the

College; (5) the University Promotion and Tenure Committee; and, (6) the Provost of the

University, on behalf of the President. The final decision denied Plaintiff's promotion

application.

Plaintiff filed a grievance which was considered by the Committee on Academic

Freedom and Tenure ("CAFT"). The CAFT concluded that Plaintiff's application should be

"re-reviewed" because the School of Planning did not have specific criteria for promotion to

full professor, and because three full professors (including Professors Alvin Mushkatel

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

(Defendant) and David Pijawka) had participated in the review at the request of the Director

even though the three full professors were on sabbatical or leave. The Committee also was

concerned that Associate Professors Theresa Cameron and Ruth Yabes had complained of

intimidation by full professors and had resigned from the review. The Committee

recommended a new hearing with participation by a neutral faculty member as observer.

President Coor accepted the Committee's decision on Plaintiff's grievance and the

Provost set up a re-review. Regents Professor of Exercise Science Dan Landers was

appointed as observer and the School developed criteria for considering the promotion to full

professor. On re-review, the same six levels considered Plaintiff's application and new

reports were written by each level. However, various members of the faculty constituting

the levels had changed. The Chair of the Personnel Committee in 2000 had been Professor

Richard T. Lai. In 2002, the Chair of the Personnel Committee was Professor Pijawka.

Professor Hemalata Dandekar replaced Mary Kihl as Director, School of Planning and

Architecture. Ron McCoy replaced Defendant Meunier as Dean. The Chair of the University

Promotion and Tenure Committee also had changed. The Chair in 2001 had been Robert

Oldani. (Doc. 54, Exhibit 2). The Chair in 2003 was Robert Bjork. (Doc. 54, Exhibit 5).

Professor Milton Glick, Sr., served as Provost during the review and was consulted on rereview by the President. Professor Gail Hackett appears to have been consulted by the

Provost during the review and by the President on re-review. Defendant Michael Crow had

replaced President Coor. 

Upon re-review, the seven-member School Personnel Committee voted to recommend

Plaintiff's promotion. (see Doc. 69, pages 3-4). The Chair of the School Personnel

Committee on re-review, Professor Pijawka, who had participated in the 2000 review,

changed his vote from negative to positive. The Director of the School, the three-member

College Personnel Committee, and the Dean of the College voted in favor of promotion. The

ten member University Promotion and Tenure Committee voted nine to zero against

Plaintiff's application, with one abstention. The reason for the adverse vote of the University

Promotion and Tenure Committee was stated as "the committee observed that the candidate's

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 4 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

having spent 10 years in the President's Office contributed substantially to his inability to

meet the department guidelines for promotion, especially in the area of research." (Doc. 54,

Exhibit 5 at page 4). During his deposition testimony, President Crow described the

University Promotion and Tenure Committee as "all senior faculty members ... [who] have

their own experience to bring to bear, so we ask them to be a quality control committee."

Defendant Michael Crow, Ph.D., became President of Arizona State University on

July 1, 2002. He previously had been at Columbia University where for eleven years he

served as Professor of International and Public Affairs and Executive Vice Provost. At

Columbia, Dr. Crow had participated in the tenure review process as chair and/or member

of the university ad hoc committee, and as a reviewer of an applicant's scholarly work, both

at Columbia and at outside institutions. Dr. Crow participated only in Plaintiff's re-review

process because he had not become President when the original application was considered.

Dr. Crow testified that re-review is a common practice. (Doc. 54, Crow Deposition at page

26). Dr. Crow read only the 2002 materials, stating that it was the first time he had

encountered the case. (Doc. 59, Crow Deposition at pages 105, 108, 110). As part of the rereview process, Dr. Crow met with the Provost of the University and the Vice Provost for

Academic Affairs, and reviewed Plaintiff's entire package of materials. Dr. Crow testified

that he made his own analysis of the situation and decided that Plaintiff was not ready to be

advanced for promotion because there was insufficient evidence of "professor behavior,

which is national stature." (Doc. 54, Crow Deposition at pages 18-21, 52).

Professor Alvin Mushkatel, also a Defendant, returned from sabbatical in the initial

review at the request of the Director of the School of Planning. Plaintiff testified during his

deposition that Defendant Mushkatel "was actively campaigning against [him] first time and

second time" based on what others had told Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that he could only

concur that Professor Mushkatel was against him because of Plaintiff's national origin,

"because I'm a Korean scholar, or I'm an Asian-American. I don't see any other reason

because I haven't done anything to cause ill [feelings] between himself and myself." Plaintiff

further testified that he did not believe that Professor Mushkatel could conclude that he was

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 5 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

not qualified "as a matter of academic judgment" because "any individual looking at my

record, they should say, 'He's more than qualified.'" 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant, Dean John Meunier, who participated in the review

only, had an improper bias against him. 

Plaintiff testified that President Crow had "changed the process and procedures while

[his] case was moving on" by making the final decision on re-review, whereas on review "the

decision was made by the Provost." As for whether the University Promotion and Tenure

Committee which voted nine to zero against his application on re-review was biased against

him based on a directive from the President, Plaintiff testified "I think it has to be coming

from somewhere."

As part of his facts in support of summary judgment, Plaintiff states that during the

time he was working on special projects, he wrote and published a major book and published

several articles in major first tier journals. Plaintiff claims that Professor Mushkatel, a former

professor in the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, singled out a Korean

student in his class and treated the student unprofessionally. Professor Mushkatel allegedly

derided the Korean student and claimed that the student was inadequate. The Korean student

passed both written and oral Ph.D. comprehensive exams and is to be published as a graduate

student. Professor Pijawka of the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture testified

during deposition that this same Korean student came to him as head of the Ph.D.

Dissertation Committee and complained about how he was treated in class by Professor

Mushkatel. Professor Pijawka also testified that Dr. Mushkatel had used language that

suggested certain racist epithets against another Asian American professor in the School of

Planning and Landscape Architecture. 

Associate Professors Theresa Cameron, Ruth Yabes, and Edward Cook, all tenured

faculty members of The School of Planning and Landscape Architecture at the time of these

events, have submitted Declarations in support of Plaintiff. Plaintiff cites the Declarations

of these faculty members as indicating that the 2000 and 2002 deliberations were unfair,

biased and discriminatory.

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 6 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

Professor Cameron in her Declaration (Doc. 56, Exhibit 4) faults herself for a "lack

of courage and integrity" during both the 2000 review and the 2002 re-review. Professor

Cameron states that as for the 2000 review, "Professor Alvin Mushkatel tried to influence my

vote." She has described several alleged irregularities in the 2000 review process such as,

for example, the Director of the school committee did not allow a proxy from another

faculty, "[t]he committee minimized Professor Kim's work in international scholarship,"

Professor Lai did not provide leadership during the deliberations, and the review process did

not have a quorum. The general tone of Professor Cameron's Declaration is that Professor

Mushkatel spoke against Plaintiff. Professor Cameron has expressed the opinion that

Professor Mushkatel was "biased" against Plaintiff and that his actions "can be viewed as

racist." Regarding the re-review, Professor Cameron stated that "[s]ome of the members on

the school committee again did not respect Professor Kim's scholarship in Korea, particularly

his book." She has offered her belief that Professor Mushkatel had a "blind bias" against

Plaintiff "being a Korean American scholar" which "probably" motivated Mushkatel "to

harm" Plaintiff. Professor Cameron cites allegedly critical comments Professor Mushkatel

made about Plaintiff and Professor Lai but does not state the content of those alleged

comments. She also cites alleged negative comments that Professor Mushkatel made about

a Korean student.

According to the Declaration of Professor Yabes, she did not participate in the 2000

review, stating that she resigned because she felt intimidated by a statement by another

professor who intended to vote against Plaintiff and because three full professors were

permitted to participate in the promotion committee meetings even though they were on

sabbatical or administrative leave. (Doc. 56, Exhibit 5). Professor Yabes stated that from

1990 through 1999, she had observed Dr. Steiner's "strong dislike and racist attitude"

toward Plaintiff. Professor Yabes participated in the 2002 re-review and has expressed the

opinion that Plaintiff did not receive an impartial review. Professor Yabes states that Subhro

Guhathakurta "in particular was vehemently against giving any research credit" for Plaintiff's

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 7 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

book. She notes that other committee members "disparaged" Plaintiff's work "without

justification." 

Professor Cook in his Declaration states that he chose to withdraw from the 2000

review because he felt the process had become compromised. (Doc. 56, Exhibit 6). It

appears that Professor Cook had the same concerns as Professor Cameron discussed above.

Professor Cook further states that regarding his participation in the 2002 re-review, he had

been impressed by Plaintiff's overall record and scholarship. Professor Cook further states

that "[t]he deliberations of the committee were generally quite positive concerning teaching

and service contributions, however, several committee members seemed unwilling to accept

the legitimacy of the research, since [Plaintiff's] scholarship focused principally in Asia."

Professor Cook states in his Declaration that he "observed numerous irregularities in the

process, a concerted effort by several individuals to introduce bias and an unwillingness to

accept scholarship done by an Asian American focusing on topics important to urban

planning in Asia." 

Plaintiff also has provided the Declaration of Professor Emeritus Michael D.

Kroelinger of the College of Design. (Doc. 56, Exhibit 11). During the fall of 2002,

Professor Kroelinger served as one of three members of the College Personnel Committee

charged with the re-review of Plaintiff's promotion to full professor. The other two members

were Professor R. Nicholas Loope representing the School of Architecture and Professor

Mushkatel (Defendant) representing the School of Planning. The Committee's deliberations

on Plaintiff were conducted with an outside observer, Professor Dan Landers. 

Professor Kroelinger states in his Declaration that the committee action was difficult

due to three issues: "1) it was a re-review using application materials from a previous review

(in other words, not current), 2) the School of Landscape Architecture & Planning action and

process did not seem to be conducted in an appropriate manner, and 3) no clear evidence

existed to support the activities and accomplishments of the candidate while assigned to the

President's Office at ASU." Professor Kroelinger states that the committee "depended

heavily on the School representative (Mushkatel in the case of the Kim review) for

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 8 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

information about relevancy of the published work and on the recommendations of the

School Committee and of the Director, respectively." According to Kroelinger, "[t]he

committee voted to unanimously support the promotion recommendation but was reluctant

in the deliberations due to the three issues" cited in his Declaration. ..."Basically, the

materials provided, including those from the School Committee, did not present a clear

recommendation in which more than a 'reluctant' decision could be based." The report of the

College Personnel Advisory Committee dated November 29, 2002 and addressed to Ron

McCoy, Interim Dean, expressed the Committee's recommendation, including its concerns,

in greater detail. (Doc. 56, Exhibit 22). 

Plaintiff has provided the reports of four external reviewers who stated that Plaintiff

is nationally and internationally recognized and should have been promoted to full professor.

The external reviewers are chosen by the University from a list provided by the University

and a list provided by the candidate. 

Professor Mary Kihl who participated in the 2000 review has stated that Plaintiff met

the criteria for promotion to full professor and should have been promoted. Professor

Hemalata Dandekar and Dean McCoy who participated in the 2002 re-review have stated

that Plaintiff met the criteria for promotion to full professor and should have been promoted.

Dean McCoy's report dated January 6, 2003 is addressed to Milton O. Glick, Sr., Executive

Vice President and Provost of ASU. (Doc. 56, Exhibit 17).

Plaintiff has cited the deposition testimony of Professor Meunier as stating that

Plaintiff's book was weak on urban planning even though Meunier further testified that he

knew nothing about urban planning. Professor Meunier during his deposition testimony

stated that Plaintiff's 1997 book "was disappointing." Professor Meunier further stated that

he thought "it was an extraordinary opportunity to tell a very interesting story about the

growth of one of the world's great metropolises, and Seoul is a very, very important global

city and a country with a very rich and deep history, and I was hoping for a book that would

leave me very richly informed, and I didn't find that." Professor Meunier testified that he had

not written or co-authored an academic book published by a major publishing house.

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 9 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

Professor Meunier testified that "urban form" is "something I do know something about".

He described his view of the deficiency in Plaintiff's book as follows: "There is a difference

between work which is purely descriptive and work which is more interpretive and

contributes to the development of theories that inform the discipline. I found this book to be

predominantly descriptive." (Doc. 56, Exhibit 18 - Deposition of John Meunier at pages 54-

57). 

III.

Discussion.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims asserted

in the amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed a cross motion for summary judgment on the

issue of liability. Plaintiff contends that the uncontroverted evidence shows that the

promotion process provided to Plaintiff was impermissibly tainted by irregularities and

illegal discriminatory animus. 

(A) Plaintiff's Title VII and § 1981 Claims Based on National Origin and

Race Discrimination.

Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion,

sex or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. "A person suffers disparate treatment in his

employment ' "... when he or she is singled out and treated less favorably than others

similarly situated on account of ...'"' race or national origin. Cornwell v. Electra Central

Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006)(quoted citations omitted). 

The plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of

discrimination. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination either through evidence showing

the employer intended to discriminate or through a presumption arising from proof of the

McDonnell factors. Villodas v. HealthSouth Corp., 338 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1101 (D. Ariz.

2004) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824

(1973) and Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff must show

that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 10 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his

protected class were treated more favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse

employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination. See Fonseca v. Sysco Food

Services of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff in an employment

discrimination case “need produce very little evidence in order to overcome an employer's

motion for summary judgment.” Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d

1115, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff need only offer evidence that “gives rise to an

inference of unlawful discrimination.” Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.

1994) (quoting Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998,1005 (9th Cir. 1985)).

The standard summary judgment principles apply, and a shifting burden analysis is

used. Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir. 1990). Throughout, the

plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450

U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the plaintiff succeeds in making a prima facie showing of illegal

discrimination, then a presumption is created that the employer undertook the challenged

action because of an illegal reason, such as the plaintiff's race or national origin. McDonnell

Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802. To rebut this presumption, the defendant must produce

admissible evidence showing that the employment action was undertaken for a "legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason." Id. The burden is one of production, not persuasion, and does

not involve a credibility assessment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.

133, 142 (2000) (citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993)). 

The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the legitimate reason

proffered by the defendant is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves, at 143. A plaintiff may

offer evidence, direct or circumstantial, "that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated

the employer" to make the challenged employment decision. Cornwell, 439 F.3d at 1028

(citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256). Alternatively, the plaintiff may offer evidence "that the

employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Id. See, Villiarimo v. Aloha

Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1123). In

the context of summary judgment, Title VII does not require the plaintiff who relies on

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 11 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

circumstantial evidence "to produce more, or better, evidence than a plaintiff who relies on

direct evidence." Cornwell, 439 F.3d at 1030 (citing Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S.

90, 100 (2003)). This same burden-shifting analysis which applies to Title VII applies to

discrimination claims under § 1981 as well. See Maduka v. Sunrise Hosp., 375 F.3d 909,

912 (9th Cir. 2004). The parties agree that this same analysis applies to Plaintiff's race and

national origin claims based on § 1981. (Doc. 53, at page 3; Doc. 60, at pages 6-12). 

1. Plaintiff's prima facie case.

In this case, Plaintiff has demonstrated through admissible evidence that he is a

member of a protected class, that is, Korean American, and that he suffered an adverse

employment action, that is, he was denied promotion to full professor. Plaintiff has not

offered any evidence that similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were

treated more favorably. Rather, Plaintiff has proffered evidence that he contends gives rise

to an inference of discrimination. Plaintiff further has proffered evidence that he was

qualified for the position of full professor. Plaintiff's evidence includes the following facts.

Plaintiff has been a tenured Associate Professor at ASU since 1985. Plaintiff's work and

credentials indicated his qualifications for full professor based on the opinions of certain

members of the reviewing committee (Associate Professors Cameron, Yabes and Cook), the

opinions of the four external reviewers who stated that Plaintiff should have been promoted

to full professor, and the recommendations of Professor Dandekar and Dean McCoy during

the re-review process. As for the evidence that Plaintiff contends gives rise to an inference

of discrimination, Plaintiff points to the opinions of Associate Professors Cameron and Yabes

that members of the School Personnel Committee both on review and re-review were biased

against him, that Professor Mushkatel campaigned against him both on review and re-review,

and that Professor Mushkatel's activity was biased against him on account of his race and

national origin as evidenced by alleged race-biased comments attributed to Mushkatel by

others regarding another professor and a Korean student. Plaintiff also cites the deposition

testimony of Defendant John Meunier as critical of Plaintiff's 1997 book on urban planning

when Meunier allegedly knew nothing about urban planning. The Court concludes that,

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 12 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff has made out a prima

facie case of discrimination based on race and national origin.

2. Defendants' legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.

Defendants contend that they have shown a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

the denial of full professorship to Plaintiff. Defendants' facts show that on both the review

and the re-review, the final decision was made to deny Plaintiff's application. Defendants

emphasize that the decision to deny the application in both instances proceeded through six

levels of review. Defendants focus on the decision on re-review by the ten-member

University Promotion and Tenure Committee who voted nine to zero against Plaintiff's

application, with one abstention. The reason for the adverse vote of the University Promotion

and Tenure Committee was stated as "the committee observed that the candidate's having

spent 10 years in the President's Office contributed substantially to his inability to meet the

department guidelines for promotion, especially in the area of research." (Doc. 54, Exhibit

5 at page 4). President Crow described the University Promotion and Tenure Committee as

"all senior faculty members ... [who] have their own experience to bring to bear, so we ask

them to be a quality control committee."

Dr. Crow participated only in Plaintiff's re-review process because he had not become

President when the original application was considered. Dr. Crow testified that re-review

is a common practice. (Doc. 54, Crow Deposition at page 26). As part of the re-review

process, Dr. Crow met with the Provost of the University and the Vice Provost for Academic

Affairs, and reviewed Plaintiff's entire package of materials. Dr. Crow testified that he made

his own analysis of the situation and decided that Plaintiff was not ready to be advanced for

promotion because there was insufficient evidence of "professor behavior, which is national

stature." (id., at pages 18-21, 52). Based on these facts and explanation, the Defendants have

articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying Plaintiff's application for full

professor.

3. Pretext.

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 13 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

The issue is whether at this stage on summary judgment proceedings Plaintiff has

demonstrated the existence of evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether the reasons proffered by the Defendants for denying his application were a pretext

for discrimination. Plaintiff points to the opinions of Associate Professors Cameron and

Yabes that members of the School Personnel Committees in both 2000 and 2002 were biased

against him and that Professor Mushkatel's actions and comments indicate racial bias.

Plaintiff emphasizes repeatedly throughout his papers that discrimination by one member of

a reviewing panel or at any stage of the academic hiring or promotion process may infect the

ultimate employment decision. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Mushkatel and Meunier

and Professors Steiner and Pijawka were known to be biased against him and that all four

participated in the decision-making process. However, the record evidence indicates that

Defendant Mushkatel, who was a member of the College Personnel Committee in 2002,

actually voted in favor of Plaintiff's application on re-review. Dr. Steiner did not participate

in the 2002 re-review and Professor Pijawka changed his negative vote in 2000 to a positive

vote in 2002. Defendant Meunier participated only in the 2000 review. Moreover, Professor

Meunier testified as to his concerns with Plaintiff's scholarship regarding the 1997 book

Plaintiff had co-authored. 

Plaintiff also claims as evidence of pretext irregularities in the selection process,

including the participation of three full professors in the 2000 review even though they had

been on sabbatical or administrative leave and the re-review procedures implemented by

President Crow. The participation of the three full professors during the 2000 review was

cited by the CAFT who recommended a new hearing with participation by a neutral faculty

member. Following the filing of Plaintiff's grievance after the 2000 review, President Coor

accepted the CAFT's decision and recommendation to set up a re-review. The Provost set

up the re-review and the School developed the review criteria. On re-review, the same six

levels considered Plaintiff's application and new reports were written by each level. Various

members of the six levels had changed on the re-review. The ten-member University

Promotion and Tenure Committee voted nine to zero, with one abstention, against Plaintiff's

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 14 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

application, citing the ten years Plaintiff had spent in the President's Office as contributing

to Plaintiff's inability to meet department guidelines for promotion, especially in the area of

research. This ten-member Committee was comprised of "senior faculty members." While

certain irregularities in the decision-making process may raise questions as to reliability of

the tenure decision, Bickerstaff v. Vassar College, 196 F.3d 435, 453-54 (2d Cir. 1999), the

procedural "irregularities" Plaintiff cites do not give rise to an inference that a discriminatory

animus flavored the decision. Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 45 (2d Cir.

2000)(rejecting contention that series of procedural irregularities in tenure process showed

discriminatory intent because there was no evidence that plaintiff's sex played a role in the

alleged irregularities).

In this case, participants in the selection process had varying degrees of opinions

regarding Plaintiff's application. As part of the re-review process, Dr. Crow met with the

Provost of the University and the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, and reviewed Plaintiff's

entire package of materials. Dr. Crow testified that he made his own analysis of the situation

and decided that Plaintiff was not ready to be advanced for promotion because there was

insufficient evidence of "professor behavior, which is national stature." The Ninth Circuit

has observed that, "academic tenure decisions involve subjective judgments on scholarship

that neither courts nor juries are well qualified to make." Elsayed Mukhtar v. California

State University, 299 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing Lynn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,

656 F.3d 1337, 1342-44 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of evidence to create a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the reasons proffered by Defendants for denying his application

were a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff also has not shown that the undisputed facts

establish that the promotion process was tainted by irregularities and illegal discriminatory

animus. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's discrimination claims

based on race and national under Title VII and § 1981 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment as to these claims is denied.

(B) Plaintiff's Retaliation Claim. 

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 15 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that he or she

engaged in a protected activity, suffered an adverse employment decision, and that there was

a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.

Villiarimo, 281 F.3d at 1064 (citing Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir.

1987)); Chaboya v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1093 (D. Ariz. 1999).

Plaintiff contends that he suffered an adverse employment action after he filed a grievance

concerning the 2000 review and objected specifically to "racial parochialism" following the

re-review recommendation of the CAFT. The Court concludes that the re-review process

which consisted of six levels of review, the unanimous vote of the University Promotion and

Tenure Committee, and the final determination to deny Plaintiff's application made by

President Crow who was not involved in the initial review process breaks any alleged causal

link. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim based on retaliation

is granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

(C) Plaintiff's § 1983 Claims Against Defendants Crow, Mushkatel and Meunier.

Plaintiff in Count V claims a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The individual Defendants have moved

for summary judgment as to Count V on the ground that Plaintiff had no property and/or

liberty interest in a promotion to full professor. In this case, a six level review process is

utilized by ASU regarding consideration of an application to full professor. Where

professors have no expectation of tenure and therefore no liberty or property due process

status, failure to follow procedure does not amount to a violation of due process rights. Batra

v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska, 79 F.3d 717, 720 (8th Cir. 1996).

In his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and in his cross motion

for summary judgment, Plaintiff contends that his application was entitled to review by an

unbiased decision-maker. In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff contends that he

has a right to a fair and impartial review process and evaluation of his application for

promotion to full professor. Plaintiff cites Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317 (6th Cir.

1988), in support of his argument. In Gutzwiller, the plaintiff sued the University of

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 16 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

Cincinnati and a number of individuals claiming that the defendants' decision to deny tenure

was the result of discrimination. The plaintiff in Gutzwiller asserted claims based on Title

VII and § 1983. In considering the plaintiff's substantive due process claim based on § 1983,

the Sixth Circuit stated as follows:

[T]he Supreme Court consistently has assumed that federal

courts may review academic decisions of public educational

institutions under a substantive due process standard. See, e.g., Ewing, 106 S.Ct. at 512. However, the Court has also made

clear that absent evidence of a constitutionally impermissible

basis for a challenged academic decision -- such as sex or race

discrimination -- courts and juries must be extremely reluctant

to second guess the professional judgment of the academic

decisionmakers. Id., at 513. Only when the challenged decision

is arbitrary and capricious, and without rational basis, may it be

set aside upon judicial review. Id.; see also Stevens v. Hunt, 646 F.2d 1168, 1170 (6th Cir. 1981).

Gutzwiller, 860 F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiff also cites Walker v. City of Berkeley, 951 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1991), in support

of his argument regarding an impartial decisionmaker. However, in Walker, the due process

claim depended on whether the plaintiff had a property right in continued employment,

which is not at issue here. Id., at 183-84. 

In this case, Defendant Meunier only participated in the 2000 review process.

Defendant Mushkatel participated in the 2000 review and in the 2002 re-review. On rereview in 2002, Defendant Mushkatel voted along with the two other members of the

College Personnel Committee to support the promotion. The deliberations of the College

Personnel Committee were conducted with an outside observer, Professor Dan Landers.

Defendant Crow as President of the University made the final decision to deny Plaintiff's

application. Dr. Crow read only the 2002 materials, stating that it was the first time he had

encountered the case. (Doc. 59, Crow Deposition at pages 105, 108, 110). The decision to

conduct the re-review was made by President Crow's predecessor, President Coor. As part

of the package President Crow reviewed, the University Promotion and Tenure Committee

made up of ten senior faculty members voted nine to zero, with one abstention, against

Plaintiff's application. President Crow met with the Provost of the University and the Vice

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 17 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

Provost for Academic Affairs before making his decision. Under these circumstances,

Plaintiff has not shown a denial of substantive due process so as to support a claim for

deprivation of constitutional rights under § 1983 against Defendants Meunier, Mushkatel or

Crow. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Count V is granted.

Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all of

Plaintiff's claims (Counts I through V) (Doc. 53) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment

as to liability (Doc. 55) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of

Defendants as to all of Plaintiff's claims. 

 DATED this 28th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01931-MHM Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 18 of 18