Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03392/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03392-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rusi P. Taleyarkhan
Appellant
Trustees of Purdue University
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 7, 2015*

Decided April 7, 2015

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3392

RUSI P. TALEYARKHAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 

Hammond Division.

No. 4:10cv39

James T. Moody,

Judge.

O R D E R

Rusi Taleyarkhan, a tenured professor at Purdue University, sued the university 

alleging that sanctions ostensibly imposed for research misconduct were cover for 

discrimination based on his race and Indian national origin. Purdue’s investigation of 

Taleyarkhan’s controversial research into cold fusion received widespread attention. 

See Eugenie Samuel Reich, Fusion Verdict: Misconduct, NATURE (July 22, 2006),

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

 

Case: 14-3392 Document: 16 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-3392 Page 2

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080722/full/454379a.html (last visited Mar. 31, 2015); 

JR Minkel, Bubble Fusion Researcher Charged with Misconduct, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

(July 21, 2008), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/taleyarkhan-bubble-fusionmisconduct/ (last visited Mar. 31, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment for 

Purdue, and Taleyarkhan appeals. We affirm the judgment.

Except as noted, the following account is undisputed and presented in the light 

most favorable to Taleyarkhan, the party opposing summary judgment. See Kvapil v. 

Chippewa County, Wis., 752 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014). In 2003 Lefteri Tsoukalas, who 

was head of Purdue’s School of Nuclear Engineering, recruited Taleyarkhan to join the 

university. While previously working at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

Taleyarkhan and several scientists from other institutions had announced success in 

achieving sonofusion, or cold “bubble” fusion. Taleyarkhan’s research became 

controversial when other scientists had difficulty replicating his observations. In 2005, 

though, a post-doctoral researcher and a graduate student at Purdue published two

related papers claiming that they had confirmed Taleyarkhan’s earlier work. Then in 

2006 Taleyarkhan published another article (with the coauthors of his research at Oak 

Ridge) saying that the two Purdue scientists had vindicated him through independent 

research. Tsoukalas asked three professors to review these papers; the professors 

reported that Taleyarkhan, not the graduate student, may have been the real coauthor 

with the post-doctoral researcher. According to Taleyarkhan, the professors’ report

prompted Tsoukalas to cancel one of his classes, to remove his faculty biography from 

Purdue’s website, and to subject him to “worldwide humiliation.” Purdue denies 

imposing any sanctions as a result of Tsoukalas’s informal inquiry.

Later that year Tsoukalas and another Purdue professor shared with the dean of 

the College of Engineering their suspicion that Taleyarkhan had engaged in research 

misconduct. An “inquiry committee” appointed by the dean then looked into the 2005 

and 2006 publications but did not uncover sufficient evidence to justify recommending a

formal investigation. Tsoukalas stepped down as head of the School of Nuclear 

Engineering in August 2006. By the spring of 2007, the university had received 

additional complaints of research misconduct from the Office of Naval Research (which 

was funding Taleyarkhan’s research), a Congressional committee overseeing publicly 

funded research, and professors from Purdue and another university. In response, the 

dean of the College of Engineering appointed a second “inquiry committee.” This

second committee examined Taleyarkhan’s mentorship of students and junior faculty, 

ultimately concluding that he was uncritical of his own data and not producing 

Case: 14-3392 Document: 16 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-3392 Page 3

scholarship commensurate with his experience. The committee recommended further 

investigation, and the dean appointed an “investigation committee” in November 2007.

In February 2008 that committee conducted a three-day hearing at which 

Taleyarkhan testified and was represented by counsel. Taleyarkhan presented evidence 

that Tsoukalas had made several disparaging remarks about his Indian ancestry before 

stepping down in August 2006. The committee released its report in April 2008 

concluding that Taleyarkhan had engaged in two acts of research misconduct. First, the 

committee found, only one of the authors credited with writing the 2005 papers had 

participated in the data collection or experiments; Taleyarkhan had added the graduate 

student’s name to those two papers, making it appear that the student had collaborated 

with the post-doctoral researcher to replicate Taleyarkhan’s experiments. Second, the 

committee found, Taleyarkhan had concealed his own considerable involvement in the 

research, writing, and submission of those papers by not identifying himself as an 

author. Taleyarkhan compounded those acts of misconduct, the committee added, by 

later publicly describing the scientists’ research as independent. An “appeal committee” 

upheld the investigation committee’s findings and conclusions.

In August 2008 the provost informed Taleyarkhan of the university’s sanctions for 

his research misconduct: He was stripped of his named professorship, prohibited from 

acting as a “major professor” for graduate students for three years, and not allowed to

mentor graduate students without oversight. Relying on Purdue’s investigation, the 

Office of Naval Research additionally prohibited Taleyarkhan from receiving federal 

research funds for three years. As a result of the Navy’s prohibition, Purdue had to 

reassign some of Taleyarkhan’s projects to other professors and staff.

In May 2010 Taleyarkhan filed this pro se action claiming discrimination in 

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and 

intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. During discovery Taleyarkhan 

served Purdue with several requests to admit factual and legal matters. See FED. R. CIV.

P. 36(a); N.D. IND. L.R. 26.1. Purdue at first objected that each request was overly broad 

and unduly burdensome. On Taleyarkhan’s motion, however, a magistrate judge ruled

that Purdue’s “broad, boilerplate objections” were insufficient and ordered the 

university to “submit complete responses,” which Purdue did.

In granting summary judgment for Purdue, the district court concluded that it 

could not consider the alleged adverse actions occurring in 2006 (which Taleyarkhan 

characterized as creating a hostile work environment) because none of those actions had 

Case: 14-3392 Document: 16 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-3392 Page 4

occurred within 300 days of Taleyarkhan’s administrative complaint submitted to the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Adams v. 

City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 729–30 (7th Cir. 2014). Taleyarkhan does not challenge 

this conclusion on appeal.

As for the adverse actions resulting from the university’s investigation and 

sanctions in 2008, the district court concluded that Taleyarkhan could not prevail under 

the direct method or indirect method. First, the court reasoned, Tsoukalas’s derogatory 

remarks about Taleyarkhan’s national origin were irrelevant because Tsoukalas had not 

been part of, or involved in appointing, the investigation committee that had found 

Taleyarkhan guilty of misconduct. The court also concluded that Taleyarkhan’s 

circumstantial evidence—that most members of Purdue’s investigation committee were 

white and the committee did not always follow university policy in discharging its 

duties—could not reasonably support the conclusion that Purdue’s sanctions were 

discriminatory. Moreover, the court continued, Taleyarkhan’s discrimination claim also 

failed under the indirect method because, even assuming a prima facie case of 

discrimination, the university had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for 

sanctioning him. The investigation committee had verified acts of research misconduct,

the court explained, and a jury could not reasonably conclude that the committee’s 

findings were pretextual. Finally, the court concluded, Taleyarkhan’s supplemental 

claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were barred because 

he did not give Purdue advance notice, as required by the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

See IND. CODE § 34-13-3-10.

On appeal Taleyarkhan first argues that the district court should not have 

disregarded Tsoukalas’s derogatory statements; Taleyarkhan insists that there is a 

genuine factual dispute about whether Tsoukalas caused the investigation leading to 

him being sanctioned by the university. A plaintiff can prevail under the “cat’s paw” 

theory of employment discrimination if he can show that an employee with 

discriminatory animus caused an unwitting decision-maker to take adverse action. 

See Matthews v. Waukesha County, 759 F.3d 821, 829 (7th Cir. 2014); Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 

888, 897 (7th Cir. 2012). But there is no evidence of causation in this case. Tsoukalas 

prompted the appointment of the first inquiry committee in 2006, but that committee 

effectively exonerated Taleyarkhan; Tsoukalas had no role in the second inquiry 

committee or the investigation committee that found evidence of misconduct in 2008. At

all events, the investigation committee independently substantiated Tsoukalas’s initial 

suspicion, so whatever motive he had for contacting the dean—even unlawful 

animus—was irrelevant. See Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chi. Park Dist., 634 F.3d 372, 383 (7th 

Case: 14-3392 Document: 16 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-3392 Page 5

Cir. 2011); Martino v. MCI Commc’n Servs., Inc., 574 F.3d 447, 452–53 (7th Cir. 2009); Brewer 

v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 479 F.3d 908, 917–20 (7th Cir. 2007).

Taleyarkhan next argues that he should have prevailed at summary judgment 

because, on his understanding, the magistrate judge had “deemed as admitted” all of his 

requests for admission evaded initially by Purdue. Failing to answer or object to a 

request for admission deems the request admitted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3); Nautilis 

Ins. Co. v. Reuter, 537 F.3d 733, 741 (7th Cir. 2008). What the magistrate judge actually 

concluded, though, is that Purdue’s blanket objection to Taleyarkhan’s requests was 

inadequate, and thus the magistrate judge compelled Purdue to answer those requests 

or provide specific objections. As the district court recognized, the magistrate judge had 

never deemed Taleyarkhan’s requests admitted.

Lastly, Taleyarkhan challenges the district court’s conclusion that his tort claims 

are barred because he did not give Purdue appropriate notice. Tort claims against state 

universities in Indiana are barred unless notice is filed with the governing body within 

180 days after the loss occurs. IND. CODE § 34-13-3-8; Keri v. Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 458 

F.3d 620, 648–49 (2006), overruled in part on an unrelated ground by Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 

F.3d 965, 967 n.1 (7th Cir. 2013); Orem v. Ivy Tech State Coll., 711 N.E.2d 864, 869 (Ind. 

App. 1999). Taleyarkhan did not dispute that he never served the board of trustees with 

notice of his tort claims. See IND. CODE § 34-13-3-10. He insists that Purdue had notice of 

his tort claims in February 2009 through his administrative charge to the EEOC. But the 

EEOC charge would have given Purdue notice only of Taleyarkhan’s Title VII claim. It 

did not alert the university that he intended to sue for negligent and intentional infliction 

of emotional distress. Accordingly, we agree that Taleyarkhan’s EEOC charge was 

insufficient to put the university on notice of his tort claims and he did not otherwise 

notify the defendant of his claims within 180 days after the loss occurred in August 2008.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-3392 Document: 16 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pages: 5