2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-23-2010 

# D eb or ah Y . W o o d v . Uni v P gh
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 09-4469

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion
" D e bor ah Y

. W ood v . U niv P gh " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 563. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/563NOT PRECEDENT IAL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T
N o. 09- 4469
DEBORAH Y. W OOD, Appe llant
v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH; MICHAEL HRITZ
On Appeal from

the United State s District Court fo r the W es te rnD istri ct

of P ennsy lvania D istri ct Co urt N o. 2- 07- cv -0 0899 District Judge: The H onorable Gary L. Lancaster Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

Se pte m be r 17, 201 0 Befo re: SLOVITER, BARRY, an d S MITH, Circuit Judges

Fi le d: S ep te m

be r 23, 201 0
OPINION
SMI TH , Circuit Judge. Inthi s e m plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n and c ivi l r igh ts a ct ion , w e ar e as ke d to
re vie wthe D istri ct

Co urt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t a ga ins t an e m

plo y ee w hose posi tio n w as e lim inate d f oll ow ing ade partm en t- w ide r ed uc tio n inf

or ce . T he2

D istri ct Co urt he ld t

ha t the e m

plo y ee f ai le d to c om e fo rth w ithe vid en ce suf fi ci en t to establish that she (1) suffer ed discrim ination on the basis o f gender, (2) w as subjected to a hostile work e nvironm ent, ( 3) wa s the victim of unlawful w orkplace
re ta liatio n, ( 4) w as de nie d e qua l pr ote ct ionof the law s, and ( 5) w as de pr ive d of he r co nst itu tio na l r igh t t o du e pr oc es s. F or the r ea sons se t f

orth b el ow , w e w ill
a f f i rm. I. Appe llant D eb or ahY
. W ood w as e m plo y ed a s asy ste m s ana ly st i n th e Sy ste m s S ec tio n of

the U niv er sity

of P itt sbur gh’ s N at ion al S ur gic al A dj uvant Br ea st & Bo w el P ro

j ec t B ios ta tis tic al Ce nte r (“ N SA BP ”)
. Appe lle e Mi ch ae l H ri tz
wa s the superviso r of N SA BP S y stem s Section personnel. A t the tim e W ood was hir ed , the S ec tio n e m

plo y ed atot al of six ind ivi dua ls; W ood w as the S ec tio n’ s so le fem ale and its onlyAf

rican A m erican em

ploy ee. N SA BP is a cl ini ca l tri al s gr oup w hose f inanc ia l e xis te nc e de pe nds uponthe
re ce ipt of non -univ er sity

gr an t f undi ng. I n 20 07, appr oxi m at el y nin ety pe rc en t of NS ABP ’ s financing was provided byNational Insti tute of He alth grants. When W ood co m

m en ce d he r em

plo ym en t w ithN SA BP , she w as pr ovi de d ar et en tio n le tte r expr es sly

statin g th at

“ the c ont inu at ionof

thi s po sit ionis co nti nge nt u pon th e ren ewal of t he se [no n- un iv ers it y gra nt ] fu nd s.”3

W ood testi fied that her f

irst several y ears of em

ploym ent wer e unrem arkable. In 2005, however, she becam e convinced that som eone wa s tam pe ri ng w ithhe r of

fi ce c om put er . O ve r the ne xt s ev er al m onths, W ood repeate dly

advised Hritz that her

com puter had been rem otely

acce ssed by

an unkn own user. She a lso alleged that icon s wer e re m oved from her com puter; that she “ los t c ontro l” of

both he r m ouse and k ey

board ; tha t the num

be r “ 666” appeared on her off

ice ca lculator “ thou sands of tim es”; and that som eone entered he r of fi ce w ith out

pe rm iss ionw he n sh e w as not pr es en t. H ri tz r es pond ed to the se al le gatio ns b y

pla ci ng a loc k onW ood’ s of

fi ce doo r, pur ch as ing and i nst al lin g sof tw ar e to m oni tor

the usa ge of

W ood’ s c om

put er , r ev ie w ing log s to de te rm ine whether W ood’s com

puter had been rem otely

acce ssed, and authorizing an ind ivi dua l f

ro m the uni ve rs ity ’ s C om

put ing S er

vic es and S y ste m s D ev el opm en t Dep art m en t (“ CSSD” ) to rev ie w net work a ct iv it y rel at edto W oo d’s co m

pu te r. Af t erm o n th s o f i n v es t i g at i n g h erco m p l ai n t s , Hr i t z c o n cl u d edth at Woo d ’s
co m put er w as not the sub j ec t of any im pr ope r tam

pe ri ng. W ood w as not

sa tis fi ed w iththi s de te rm inatio n. I n June 200 6, she contacted the university ’ s Hum an Resources D epartm ent to convey her dissatis faction. The H um an Resources D epartm ent thereaf ter com m enced an inv es tig at ionof

it s own. I n a ddi tio n, H ri tz , CS SD , and D r. Jos ep h C ost an tin o, the dir ec tor of N SA BP , c ont inu ed

the ir inv es tig at ive e ff

orts t hr ough out

the sum m er of4

2006
. The har d drive of W ood’s com puter wa s reform atted, she w as provided
w itha t l ea st o ne ne wc om put er , and C SS D r ev ie w ed a ddi tio na l e ve nt l ogs tr ac kin g the usa ge of

W ood’ s c om

put er . H ri tz a lon e spe nt o ve r 150 hour s a tte m pti ng t o unc ove r the sourc e of

W ood’ s c om

pla int s. I n th e en d, e ac h of the se vari ous inquir ie s r ea ch ed

the sam e de te rm inatio n: n oth ing im pr ope r ha d tr an spi re d w ith respect to W ood’s com

puter. In Novem

ber 2006, W ood con tacted the cam pus po lice to report that
som eo ne ha d br oke n in to h er loc ke d of

fi ce . T his a lle ga tio n le d to an in ve sti ga tio n by the universitypolice departm ent, a s well a s additio nal investig ative m easures by H ri tz , CS SD , and C ost an tin o. C SS D a ssi gne d K ev in J ohns on, ase nio r inform ation security

analy st, to conduct a forensic inspection of W ood’s hard drive. Johnson d evoted over 200 hours to th is inqu iry , only to conclude that W ood’ s c om

put er w as not a cc es se d im

pr ope rl y . T he uni ve rs ity

pol ic e lik ew ise
une ar the d no e vid en ce of

ina ppr opr ia te or

unl aw fu l a ct ivi ty . W ood none the le ss considered these invest igative efforts to be “ inadequate.” C onsequ ently , she f iled
a co m pla int w iththe E qua l E m

plo ym en t O ppor

tun ity Co m m iss ion( “ E E O C” ) on D ec em be r 19, 200 6, a lle gin g th at she w as the vic tim

of ge nde r dis cr im inatio n. Inthe spr ing of

200 7, Co stanti no l ea

rn ed that the N at ion al I nst itu te of Heal th in te nd edto reduc e it s fu nd in g o f NSABP b y ov er t wo m il li on do ll ars . He therefore determ ined that a reduction in th e N SA BP em ploym ent rolls was5

ne ce ssary to m ai nta in d ep ar

tm en t pr oduc tiv ity
. C ost an tin o e le ct ed to te rm inate de partm en t e m

plo y ee s w iththe low es t j ob c la ssi fi catio ns. W ood w as one of
se ve nte ene m

plo y ee s se le ct ed

f or dis ch ar ge . O n June 28, 200 7, Co stanti no
announ ce d to the sta ff

that a r ed uc tio n inf

or ce w as ne ce ssary

and n am ed

tho se em plo y ee s whose pos iti ons w oul d be te rm inate d. A ft er his announc em en t, how ev er , Co stanti no o ff

er ed W ood the opp ortun ity

to int er vie wf or ane wpos iti on in anothe r se ct ionof

N SA BP
. W ood de cl ine d th is o ff er , and o n Ju ly

12, 200 7, she
w as f orm al ly dis ch ar ge d. O n th e day

of he r fo rm al dis ch ar ge , W ood se rv ed the uni ve rs ity

w itha co m pla int a sse rt ing ge nde r an d r ac e dis cr im inatio n invio la tio n of T itl e V II of

the Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § § 2 00 0e -2 , et se q. , se ct ion198 3 of

the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct , 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, and the P ennsy lvania H um anRe la tio ns A ct , 43 P a. Co ns. St at . §§ 95 1, et seq . T he D istri ct Co urt e xe rc ise d j ur isd ic tio n purs uant t o 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1 331 an d 13 67, and d ism iss ed the r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n c la im s be ca use th ey were n ot ad m in is tra ti ve ly exh au st edbe fo re Woo d i ni ti at edfed eral su it
. Fo llo w ing ape ri od o f dis co ve ry , the D istri ct Co urt gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of the university

and Hr itz on all rem aining claim s. W ood ti m ely appealed the D istri ct

Co urt’ s sum

m ar y j udgm en t or de r an d w e have j ur isd ic tio n purs uant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 12 91.Our a naly sis of g ender

discrimination claims under the Pennsy lvania Human Re lations 1 Act (“ PHRA”) is identical to our a naly sis under Title VI I
. Burgh v. Borough Council of Mo ntros e , 2 51 F .3 d 4 65 , 4 69 (3 d Ci r. 20 01 ). Th e re fo re , w e do no t se pa ra te ly a dd re ss t he PHR A c la im. 6 II. W e “ exercise plenar

y reviewover the D istrict Court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t and a

ppl y the sam e standard

that the D istri ct

Co urt sh oul d have applied.” Shum an e

x re l. She rtz er

v . P en n M

anor Sc h. D ist
. , 422 F
. 3d 1 41, 146 (3 d C ir
. 200 5) ( quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te “ if the ple ad ing s, the dis co ve ry and d isc los ur e m at er ia ls o n f ile , and any

a ff idavit s showthat the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovant i s en tit le d to j udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 56( c)
. T he f ac ts m ust be vie w ed in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng p ar ty and a ll re as ona

ble in fere nc es fro m

th e ev id en ce m

us t b e d rawn in he r fav or . Conopco, Inc. v. United St at es , 572 F.3d 162 , 165 (3d Cir. 2009 ). III
. W ood al le ge s th at

appe lle es vio la te d T itl e V II by ( 1) dis cr im inatin g a ga ins t he r on the ba sis of

ge nde r, ( 2) f

ost er ing ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t, and 1 (3 ) re ta liatin g a ga ins t he r af te r she e nga ge d inpr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty . W ood of

fe rs noWood’s brief conta ins passing r efe renc es to her c ontention that she suffe red 2 discrimination on the basis of ra ce. T he ra ce disc rimination claims were dismiss ed by the District Court at the pleadingstag e, howe ver, be cause Wood failed to exhaust her administrative reme dies. Wood does not directly challeng e the District Court’s dismissal order , nor does she proff er a ny argument sug g estingthe orde r wa s err oneous. As a r esult, she has wa ived the issue for pur poses of a ppeal. See Kac h v . H

os e , 5 89 F .3 d 6 26 , 6 42 (3 d Ci r. 20 09 ) ( statin gthat “ it i s we ll s e ttl e d th at ‘ a

pa ssi ngre fe re nc e to a

n is su e wi ll n ot s uf

fi c e to b ri ngthat is su e be fo re thi s co urt ’” (qu o t i n g Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foste r W heele r Corp. , 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994)))
. 7 dir ec t e vid en ce of

ge nde r dis cr im inatio n, so w e m ust ana ly ze he r al le ga tio ns 2 unde r the f

ram ew ork se t f

orth i n McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. Gree n , 411 U. S. 79 2 (1 97 3)
. Se e, e . g. , Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Me d., Inc. , 228 F
. 3d 3 13, 31 8- 19 (3d Cir . 20 00 ). M cD onne ll D ouglas r equir es the pla int if f to s houl de r the initial bu rden to m ake out a prim a fa cie ca se of discrim ination
. If the plaintiff
m ee ts this r equir em en t, the bur de n of pr oduc tio n sh if

ts t o th e de fe ndant t o art ic ul at e a l eg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory rat io na le forth e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . Sh oul d th e de fe ndant s at isf y it s burd en , the pr es um

pti on o f dis cr im inator

y a ct ion is r eb utt ed

and the pla int if

f m ust de m onstrate that the de fe ndant’ s st at ed r ea sons are p ret ex tu al
. See W

ishkin v. P otter , 476 F. 3d 18 0, 185 (3d Cir. 2007 ). To m ake out a prim a fa cie claim for em ploym ent discrim ination , a Title V II pla int if f m ust sho w( 1) she be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed c la ss, ( 2) she w as qua lif

ie d f or the pos iti on i n qu es tio n, ( 3) she w as sub j ec te d to an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion , an d ( 4) the e xis te nc e of

c ir cum stanc es w hic h gi ve r ise to aninf er en ce of pr oh ib it eddi sc riminat io n. See Te xa s D ep ’t of Cm ty . A

ffa irs v . B urdi ne , 450 U. S.After Wood’s posit ion was eliminated, she w as off ere d the opportunity

to interview for 3 a vac ant position in another sec tion of NSABP. Wood declined this offe r, which w as then extended to an employ ee na med J idong Z ou. Although Z ou’s job classification was lower tha n that he ld b y

Woo d, it i s und isp ute d th at Z ou wa s o ff e re d th e po sit ion

on ly a ft e r Wo od

tur ne d it down. Ther efor e, Z ou’s re tention is not evidence of the fourth pr ima fac ie eleme nt. 8 248, 253 ( 1981 ); Saru llo v. U nited Sta tes Postal Serv. , 352 F
. 3d 7 89, 797 -9 8 ( 3d Ci r. 200 3) ; Pivirotto v. Innovative Sys., Inc. , 191 F. 3d 34 4, 357 (3d Cir. 1999 ). In
a re duc tio n inf

or ce sui t, apla int if

f sa tis fi es the f

ourth e le m en t by

de m onstratin g that the e m

plo y er r et ai ne d si m ilarl y

sit ua te d e m plo y ee s who w er e not

w ith in the pr ot ect edcla ss . Se e A nde rso n v . Co nsol
. R ail Co rp. , 297 F
. 3d 2 42, 249 -5 0 ( 3d Ci r. 200 2) ; In re Ca rne

gie Ct r. A sso cs . , 12 9 F .3d29 0, 2 94 -9 5 (3 d C ir. 1 99 7)
. Ther e is no questi on that th e first three prim a fa cie re quirem ents are satisfied he rei n, b ut th e rec or d i s d ev oi d o f ev id en ce wh ic h s at is fie s t he fin al ele m en t. To the c ontrary , it

is undi sput ed

that N A SB P te rm inate d se ve nte ene m plo y ee s w ith the low es t j ob c la ssi fi catio ns. W ood doe s no t i de nti fy asin gle ind ivi dua l whose j ob classification was equal or infer ior to hers and who retained his or her posi tio n. I n othe r w or ds, the re is no e vid en ce that e m plo y ee s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d to 3 W ood w er e re ta ine d. H er c la im f ai ls, the n, f

or she c annot

e sta bli sh tha t the f

ac t ofEven if we wer e to conc lude that Wood made out a prima f acie case of discrimination, 4 a p p e l l e e s h av e art i c u l at e d

a l e g i t i m at e n o n - d i s c r i m i n at o r y p ur p o s e f o r h e r t e r m i n at i o n : n am e l y, NASBP’s budg et was r educe d and the de partment wa s require d to trim the employ ment rolls. Wood offere d no direc t or circ umstantial evidence to discredit this proffe red r eason, nor has she adduce d evidenc e sug g estingthat discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or deter minative cause behind her discharg e. See Fu e nte

s v . P e rsk ie , 32 F.3d 759, 764 ( 3d Cir. 1994). 9 he r te rm inatio n r ai se s an in fe re nc e of dis cr im inator

y anim us. See P iv iro tto , 191 4 F. 3d at 35 2 ( quot ing Int’l B hd. of Team sters v. U nited Sta tes , 431 U
. S. 324 , 335
n . 1 5 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , an de x p l a i n i n g th a t“ [ t ]h e c e n tr a l f o c u s o f th e i n qu i ry . . . i s a l w a ys
w he the r the e m

plo y er is tr eatin g so m e pe opl e le ss f av or ab ly than othe rs be ca

use of the ir r ac e, c olo r, r el igi on, se x, or na tio na l or igi n” ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks
om itted)). W oo d n ex t ar gu es th atsh e was subjec te d t o aho st il e wor k e nv iro nm en t. To
m ake out a T itle VI I hostile work environm ent claim , an em ploy ee m ust sh ow that

“ (1 ) the e m

plo y ee suf

fe re d in te nti ona l di sc ri m inatio n be ca use of [ he r] se x, ( 2) the dis cr im inatio n w as pe rv as ive and r eg ular, ( 3) the dis cr im inatio n de tr im en ta lly af fe ct ed the [ em plo y ee ] , ( 4) the dis cr im inatio n w oul d de tr im en ta lly a ff ec t a
re as ona ble pe rs on o f the sam e se x inthat po sit ion , and ( 5) the e xis te nc e of
respon de at s upe rio r

liability .” Andreoli v. Gates , 482 F. 3d 64 1, 643 (3d Cir. 2007 ) (quot ing W

es ton v . P en nsy lv ani a , 251 F. 3d 42 0, 426 (3d Cir. 2001 )) (i nte rn al quo ta tio ns m ar

ks o m itt ed ). W ood ar gue s th at she suf fe re d pe rs ist en t hara ssm en t whic h must have been the r es ult of ge nde r bia s. S pe ci fi ca lly , she10

cl ai m s th at

he r co m put er w as the r ec ur

re nt o bj ec t of

tam pe ri ng, that the uni ve rs ity ’ s in ve sti ga tio n of he r al le ga tio ns w as “ ins uf fi ci en t, ” an d th at

H ri tz and he r co w orke rs “ ac te d di ff er en tly ” tow ar d he r an d tr eate d he r w ithdis re spe ct in of fic e m eet in gs . T he D istri ct

Co urt he ld tha t W ood’ s pr of fe re d e vid en ce f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh th atsh e was th e su bjec t o f in te nt io na l g en de r di sc riminat io n. We agre e. Un i v er s i ty emp l o yees we n tt o ex tra o rd i n ary l en g th s t o i n v es t i g at e Wo o d ’s tam pe ri ng a lle ga tio ns and the re is sim ply no e vid en ce to sugg es t tha t any a spe ct of their inquiry

wa s influenced by

gender bias. W ood’s vague assertion that her
co lle ag ue s “ ac te d di ff

er en tly ” tow ar d he r an d tr eate d he r w ithdis re spe ct is li ke wis e in su ffi ci en t t o m eetTit le VII’s pr im a fac ie req ui rem en t. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc. , 523 U
. S. 75, 80- 81 ( 1998 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at T itl e VI I does not im

pose a “ general civility

code” upon workplace conduct). W ood also contends th at she wa s the victim of unlawful w orkplace
re ta liatio n. T o e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al ia tio n, an e m

plo y ee m ust sho w (1 ) that he or

she e nga ge d inpr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty , ( 2) that he or

she w as sub

j ec te d to an adverse ac tion b y

the em ploy er, and (3) the existence of a causal link between th e em pl oyee’s pro te ct edact iv it y an d t he pu rp or te dl y

ad ve rs e act io n. Marra v. Phila. H ous. A uth
. , 497 F. 3d 28 6, 300 (3d Cir. 2007 ). The District Court held that W ood eng aged in protected activity when she filed c om

plaints with the EE OC,Ac c or din gto Wo od , th e re du c tio n in NSA B P’ s w or

kf or c e wa s d e vis e d s pe c if

ic a lly to 5 “g et rid of” her. This e x planation is entirely speculative and does not c onstitut e dire ct or circ umstantial evidence from which a fac tfinder c ould rea sonably disbelieve the unive rsity ’s articulated re asons, or upon whic h it could conclude that an invidious discriminatory rea son was more likely

than not a motivating or

deter minative cause of the univer sity ’s ac tion. See Fuentes , 32 F.3d at 764. 11 that W ood’ s Ju ly

12, 200 7 di sc harg e co nst itu te d an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ion , an d t ha t t he di sc ha rg e was cau sa ll y li nk edto he r pr ot ect edact iv it y . Alth ou gh we are not conv inced that W ood h as satisfied the third prim a fa cie elem ent, w e agre e
w iththe D istri ct

Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at appe lle es e ff

ec tiv el y r eb utt ed any inference of discrim inatory action. T he universityproduced und isput ed evidence that NSA BP’ s budg et w as reduced, which in turn necessitated a w orkforce
re duc tio n. Wha t i s m or e, Co stanti no s el ec te d po sit ion s f or e lim inatio n by pinpoi nti ng those e m

plo y ee s w iththe low es t j ob c la ssi fi catio ns. W ood w as one s u ch empl o yee. Be ca u s e s h e o ff er s n o ev i d en ce t o re b u tth e u n i v er s i ty’ s le git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r at ion al e, W ood’ s r et al ia tio n c la im is w ith out 5
m er it. Fi na lly , W ood ra ise s e qua l pr ote ct ionand d ue pr oc es s c la im s purs uant t o § 19 83. T he sho w ing r equir ed to pr ove a§ 19 83 g en de r dis cr im inatio n c la im is id en ti cal to th atreq ui redby T it le VII, see Ste wa rt v . R utg er s , 120 F
. 3d 4 26, 432 (3d Cir. 1997 ); W ood’s fa ilure to m ake out a case of Title V II gender di sc riminat io n i s t hu s fa ta l t o h er ac ti on ari si ng un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C la us e.12

T he due pr oc es s c la im

is lik ew ise de fe ct ive , f

or the sa fe guard s of

the D ue P ro ce ss Cl au se “ ap ply

onl y to the de pr ivatio n of

int er es ts e nc om

pa sse d by the F ourte en th Am endm ent’ s protection of liberty and property .” Sanguig

ni v
. P itt sbur gh B d. of Pub. Educ. , 968 F
. 2d 3 93, 401 ( 3d C ir
. 199 2) ( quot ing B d. of R egen ts v . R oth , 408 U. S. 564, 569-70 (19 72)) (internal quotation m arks om itted). W ood con tends that she was “ entitled to h ave [her ] claim s of electr onic harassm ent and interfere nce properly investig ated,” and that the univ ersity failed to “ enact proper policies
re gul at ing inc ide nt and f

or en sic inv es tig at ion s. ” H ow ev er , W ood ide nti fi es no statutory or regulatory

requirem ent m andating th at the university follow a given set of investigativ e procedures. W ood th eref ore has no constit ution ally protected lif e, li be rty , or

pr ope rty int er es t i n “pr ope r” uni ve rs ity inv es tig at ive pr oc ed

ur es . Fo r the r ea sons se t f

orth a bove , the or de r of

the D istri ct

Co urt gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the appe lle es is af

fi rm ed
.