Chi efJ udge ofthe Uni t ed S t at es Dis t ri c tCour tf or the So uth-  er n Di s t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3747 S UR IY A H. S MILE Y, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C OLU MBI A C OLLEGE C HI CAGO, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CV 06183

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AY 3, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 30, 2013

B efo re R O V NE R a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges, a nd Y OUNG, D istrict Judge.  W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fte rr ec ei vinga c o m pl aint fro m a student concerni ng one of i ts part- ti m e in struct o r s , Co l umb i a Co l l e g e Ch i c a g o f a c ul t y me mbe r s a nd a dm i ni str ato rs i nter vi ew ed t he stud ent o n sev er alo c-2 N o. 10

- 3747

ca si o ns a nd a l so i nt er vie wed the f ac ul tymem be r . The schoo l ult i m ate l y i nfo rm ed the f acul ty m em ber, Su riy a Sm i l ey, thati t would notas k herto t each further cl ass es. S m i l ey conte nd s the sc hool ’ s deci si on was bas ed on he r ra ce o rna ti o na lo r i g i n. Al th o ug h s he mai nt ains th at oth er i ns t ruc tors out side her p rotecte d class w ere tr ea te d m o r e f av o r ab l y, the i nv es ti g at i o ns o fo th eri nst r uct o r s to w hi chs he po i nt s do no t su g g es t th at
. The schoo l ’ s pro cedures did notr equi re the s c hoolto co n t a c to th e rwi tn e s s e s t o a l l e g e d d i s c r i mi n a t o r y c o nduct, a nd the s ch o o l ’ s i nv es ti g at i o n o fthe co m pl aint ag ains t he rdo es no t i ndi ca te tha t i ts r ea so n fo rt el l i ng her i t would notas k herto te ach m or e cl ass es w as p r e t e x t u a l

. We a ffi r m th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofCol um bi a.

I . B AC KGR OUND Col um bi a Col l ege i s a pri va te ar ts and m edi a co l l ege i n Ch i c a g o . S ur i y a S mi l e y wa s a p a r t
- t i me i ns t r uc t or i n Col um bi a’ s Radi o Dep ar tm ent fro m 19 94 thro ugh J anuary20 09. S he i s o fPal est i ni an and Lebanese desce nt. N ea rthe e nd o fthe f al l 2008 s emes te r, o ne o fthe nine students in Sm i l ey’ s Radi o Stud i o Op er atio ns cl ass m et w i th two f acul ty m em b er s a nd sa i d he fel t S m i l ey had si ngl ed hi m o ut i n cl ass because he i s J ew i sh. A t o ne o f th e fac u lty m em b er s’ req u es t, th e stu d en t ou tlin e d h is com pla i nt i n an e m ai l, wh i ch he s ent o n N ov em ber18 , 20 08
. The e m ai ls ta te d ( wi thpunc tu at i o n a nd s pel l i ng as it app ears in the ori ginal):N o. 10

- 3747 3 Ih a v e g r e a tc o n c e r n o v e rs o me i n s t a n c e s i n my Radio S tudio Operat i ons cl ass with S ue Sm iley. They have esca l ate d into bei ng m aj ord eroga tory, and anti

- sem eti c i ssues . Iwould l i ke to re cap f or y o u wha th a s h a pp e ne d. 1. O n S e p t e mb e r 8 th, I n my fi r s t c l a s s wi th S ue Sm i l ey, she w as doi ng at tendance. S h e c am e t o m y nam e, and sai d “ yo u’r e a J EW ” r i ght?” Ias ked Su e, “w h y d id you as k t h at ? ” S h e s aid “I co u ld t e l lb y y o urn o s e , a nd l a s tn a me. ” T he n s he s a i d, “I’m an A ra b .” 2. On Oct o be r2 7th, S ue t o l d m e di rectly s he went to S hl o ts k y ’ s del iwi thfr i en ds o ver the wee k en d she s ai d her fri ends or d er ed f oo d, and tol d m e, da mn tho s e “ J e ws ” kno w s o me g o o d fo o d. 3. On N ove m ber3r d, Sue ask ed m ysel f& J oe wh i c h If o r g o th i s l a s tn a me t o l o o ka ta c d o n my c om p u te r. T h e c d h ap p en ed to co n ta inex p licit pictures o fherr eve al i ng herbo dy. 4
. O n No v e mb e r1 0 th, S u e a s k e d m e i fIkn e w a r ec en t g r adua te
. Is ai d “ no ” S he s ai d, “ Ithou ght al l“J EW S” knew e ve ryone. ” S he cam e t o w here I w as si tting and asked ifshe coul d take a picture of m e. Isa i d no. S he r epl i ed w i th, “a re yo u too relig i o us o fa J EW to ta k e a pi ctur e? ” The n a t th e en d o fthe c l as s sh e ca m e ve r y c los e to my f ac e an d sm irk ed an d sa id , “b ye sw ee tie .” Last week w hen Il eft the r oo m , I ov erhear d her te llin g t h e c las s t h at I su c ke d on th e ra d io. Sh e t ells4 N o. 10

- 3747

ev er yo n e h er life st or y , a n d lau gh s a t p eo p le behi nd thei r back s. Th e s e a r e a fe w o fth e i n s t a n c e s th a tIh a v e c o me up agains t i n h er class. Iw orked f or 3 years be f o r e com ing to c o l l eg e. Dur i ngtha t ti m e Ie ncounter ed m any types ofpeopl e fro m m any b ackg r o u n d s . Un f o r t u n a t e l y th e r e a r e a l o to fmi s c o nc ep tio n s a n d ge n er aliz at ion s a b ou t p eo p le in th e “ r e a l ” wor l d. Ma n y t i me s Iw o u l d c o me h om e a n d rep ea t in d is b elie f w h at so m eo n e in th e w or kp l a c e h ad sa id to m e. B u t, I ch alk ed it up t o the m be i ngu ne du c a t e d a nd u np o l i s he d. Ichos e Col um bi a Col l ege noto nl y b ecause o f i t’ s r epu ta ti o n a s one of the fi ne sts ch o o l s, b ut al so be c au se ofi t’ s di ver si ty. N eve r did Iev er expect t o be deni gr ate d and hu m i l i ated by a teac h e r . H ow ever, sinc e atten d ing M s. Sm il ey’s c l a s s p u t s me i n a s i t ua t i o n o fe x t r e me d i s c o mf o r t ne g a t i v e l y ; I a m l o o k i ng t o wa r ds y o ur g ui dance as how to pro ceed fro m her e. Pl eas e r espond as soo n as possibl e s o th at Ican l o o kf o r war d t o my futur e edu ca ti o n. The f acul ty m em ber s et up a m eet i ng with Stud ent A and the Ch ai r of the Radio Departm ent, Barba ra Cal abr ese . A t the m eet i ng, S tudent A r epeated w h at he had sta ted inh is e m ail, sa id th at h e w as ex tr em ely u n c om for ta b le i n c l as s a nd di d no t wantt o r etur n, a nd s ta te d tha t he fel t i so l at ed an d s i ng l ed o uti n c l as s f o rb eingJ ewi sh

. Col um bi a i m ple m ented a re vi sed A nti

- Disc ri m i nati on a nd H ar ass m ent Pol i cy i n A ugust 2 008. A m ong othe rN o. 10

- 3747 5 th ings , it p rovide s tha t stu d en ts w il l not receive un favorab le t re at m en t b as ed on rac e o r re ligion . Th e re s p o n sibi l i ty f ori n ve st i gat i ng co m pla i nts r ai sed bystud ents und erthe pol i cy re sts with the D ea n o fS tudents’ Offi ce. S te pha ni e Downs , the Ass i st an t D ire ct o rf o rS tu den t Devel opm ent a nd o ne o fthe pers ons re sponsibl e for i n vesti gat i ng co m pla i nts b y s tudents ag ai nst f acul ty, m etwi thS tu den t A and do cument ed th e m ee tingi n a m em or andu m . S he s tat ed i n i t that S tudent A ve ri fi ed al lthe i nf o r m at i o n in h i s emai l

. S he a l so s ta te d i n the m em or andu m thatthe st u d en t fear ed w hat S m i l ey w ou ld sayt o hi m a nd abo uthi m , tha t he was uns ure whethe rhe w an te d t o s ubmi t a wri tt ens ta te m en t, a nd that h e fel t that the i ssue had been r eso l ved bec ause he was no l onge r i n the cl ass . D ow n s t ele p h on ed Sm iley , an d th e t w o m etin Dow ns’ s o ffi ce s eve ra ldays l ate r. Dow ns docum en ted th is m eeting in a D ecem ber 9 m e m o r an d um . Do w ns ’s m em or andu m r eco unts thatS m il ey m ade st ate m ents i ncl ud i ng tha t s he has a “ sta nd ar d j ok e” with he r cla s s; sh e “goofs aroun d w ith th em ”; “I kn ew Ihu rt hi s feel in gs . I t’ s no t g oi ng to hurt a r egul arstud ent. ”; “[ S tu d en t A ] mis unde r st o o d. Ig ue ss he i s ve r y c o nc re te .”; an d “I te as ed h im .” D ow n s te st ified in h er d ep os ition th at it had been her p ractice over s e v e n teen years to p lace qu otation m ar k s a roun d statem en ts th at w ere d ire c t q u ot at ion s, as sh e d id for th es e s ta te m en ts in he rme mor a nd um. S mi l ey de ni e s s t a t i ngtha ts he h a d a st an dard j oke with the cl ass , thatshe sai d her com m ents w ou ld n oth u rta r eg u lar st u d en t, or t h at sh e s aid h e is concr ete
. S he al so d en i es m aking anyo fthe re m ar ks6 N o. 10

- 3747 dir ecte d to Stud ent A about hi s r eligion that he al l ege d in his em ail

. Sm il ey p resen ted along w ith he r su m m ary j u d gm en t re sp on s e a ffid av its from se ve ra l st u d en ts in the c l ass wh o sta te that she di d not m ake di scr i m i natory r em ar ks. A s wa s he r pr a c t i c e , Do wns pr e pa r e d a “ S ummary of D is cr i m i na ti o n Co m pl aint ” th ats um m ar i ze d S tu den t A’s com pla i nt and heri nter vi ew s, and she con c lu ded that S m i l eyv i o l at ed th e Anti

- Discr i m i na ti o n a nd Har as sment Pol i cy. Loui se Love, Col um bi a’s Vice

- Pres i dent f orA cadem i c Aff ai rs , d ete rm i ned the co nsequences f orf acul ty m embe r s who vi o l at ed th e P ol i cy . Af te rr ec ei ving Dow ns’ s s um m ar y, L ov e, wh o had not pr evi ousl y m et Sm i l ey, had a m eet i ng wit h Sm i l ey w here a unio n re presenta ti ve and C al ab re se were al so prese nt. Love tes ti fi ed th ata s a r esul t o fthe meet i ng, s he b el i ev ed fr o m the w ay that Sm i l ey sp ok e about her re l ati onshi p w i th her students that S m iley d i d not obser ve profess i onaldecor um . S he a l so beli ev ed S m i l eydi d no t unde r st an d the b oundari es between f acu l ty and student bas ed on Sm i l ey’ s j oking and te asing with her students a nd d isclo

su r e o ff ac ts abo uthe ro wn f ami l y s i tu ation. Afte rthe m eeting, Lov e prep ared a su m m ary m em oran d um w he re sh e no te d, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, tha t S m i l eys ai d s he t o l d S t ud e nt A’ s c l a s s s he wa s Ar ab a nd tha t s he had ea te n h erfirst kni sh, b uttha t sh e den i ed m ak i nga ny othe r com m ents about J ew s. L ov e al so note d that S m i l ey w as aw ar e s he em bar ra sse d Student A by m aking a j oke abo ut the fac t he did notkno w cer tain m usi ci ans. Lo ve s en t S m i l eya l et te ro n J an ua r y 1 7, 200 9 adv i singN o. 10

- 3747 7 her that Col um bi a found h er in vi ol ati on o fthe Pol i cy and that s he would no l onge r be a ske d to tea ch co urse s. Sm iley f i led th is s u it a lleg in g t h at C olu m b ia d isc rim inated ag ai nst he r on the basi s o fherr ace and nati onal o r i g i n in v i o l at i o n o fTi tl e VI I, 4 2 U. S
. C
. § 20 00 e. S he al so bro ught a cl ai m f or r ace disc ri m i nati on under 42 U
. S. C
. § 1981. Th e d istric t c o u rt grante d Colu m bia’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, and Sm i l ey appeal s.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e nov o, cons tru ing allfa c t s a nd reason able inferen c es in Sm iley ’s fa vo r. S ee M a tt hews v. City of E ast St. Louis , 6 75 F
. 3d 70 3, 7 06 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2)
. S m i l eymai nt ains that Col um bi a Col l ege di scr i m i nated ag ain st her on th e b as is of h er rac e a n d n at i o n a l o r igin . Tit le V II pr o hibi ts a n e m pl o y erfr om di sc r i m i na ting“ ag ains t an y i nd i vi du alwith r espectto hi s co m pensati on, te rm s, condi ti ons, o r pri vi l ege s o fem plo ym ent, bec ause of such i nd i vi du al ’ s rac e, co l or, r el i gi on, se x, o r nati onal or i g i n. ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. S e c t i o n 1 9 8 1 p r o hi bi ts r ac e di sc r i m i na ti o n i n th e m ak i nga nd f o r m i ngo fc o nt r a c t s . O ’Le ary v. Accre ti ve Health, Inc. , 6 5 7F
. 3 d 6 2 5, 63 0 ( 7th Ci r2 011). W e g en er al l y a ppl y the s ame s ta nda r ds t o T i t l e V I Ia nd s e c t i o n 1 9 8 1 r a c e di s c r i minatio n cla im s a t t h e s u m m a r y jud gm en t s ta ge . H um ph ries v. C B O C S Wes t, Inc. , 474 F.3d 387, 403 (7th C ir. 2007). N o m em b ero fCol um bi a’ s a dm i ni str ati on o r f acul ty m ade expl i ci t co m m ents re gar ding her ra ce o r nati onal8 N o. 10

- 3747

or i gi n, so S m i l ey proce ed s u n der the f am i l i ari nd i re ct m et h o d o fp ro vin g T itle V II an d se c tio n 19 81 cla im s. See, e.g., M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp . v. G reen , 41 1 U.S
. 79 2 (19 73 ); Sto ck w ell v. C ityof H a rvey, 59 7 F
. 3d 8 95, 90 2 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. U n d e rth e i n d i r e c tme th o d , t o s u r v i v e s u mm ar y jud gm en t, S m i ley m u st firstes ta b lish a p rim a fa c ie case , wh i ch she can do b y s how i ng: ( 1) she i s a m em ber ofa pro tect ed cl ass ; ( 2) she m et Col um bi a’ s l egi ti m ate ex pec ta ti o ns ; ( 3) s he su ffer ed ana dve r se e m pl o y m en t acti on; and ( 4) si m i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo ye es o utsi de of the pr ote cted cl ass es w er e t re ate d m or e f avo rabl y. A rizan ovk sa v. Wal-M art Sto res, Inc. , 68 2 F
. 3d 698, 70 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. I fshe sat i sfi es the pr i m a faci e ca se, th e b u rd en sh ifts to C olu m b i a t o id en tify a leg itim at e, n on d isc rim in at or y re as on for th e t er m in at ion
. Id. If C olu m b ia d oe s s o, su m m ar y jud gm en t w ou ld on ly be im p roper i fS m i l ey produced suffi ci ent e vi dence th at th e p ro ffer ed rea so n w as p re te x tu al. Id. Col um bi a m ai ntai ns thatsum m ar y j ud gm ent was p ro p er on t h e b as is th at Sm iley w as n otm ee tin g its legit im ate expecta ti ons. A l though S m i l ey denie s s om e o f S t ud e ntA’ s a l l e g a t i o ns , s o me thing s ar e u nd i s pu t e d. Col um bi a r ecei ved a w ri tte n com pla i nt o fso m e l ength fro m a st u d en t in Sm iley ’s c las s. A t le a s t fo u r C olu m b ia empl o y ees m etwi tho ri nt er vi ewe d the s tu den t an d hear d him co nfi rm h is alleg ati ons. Both Down s a nd Love m et w i th Sm i l ey on separ ate occa si ons. A lthough Sm i l ey denie s m akin g som e o fthe sta tem ents Stud ent A al l eg es , s he a ckno wl edg ed th athe rt ea ching sty l e i nv o l v e d g o o fi n g a r o u n d wi th h e r s t u d e n t s , t e a s i n g th e m, a n d th a tS t u d e ntA was u p s e ta ft e rs h e j o k e d w i th h i m.N o. 10

- 3747 9 I t i s no t unre aso nabl e for C olum bi a t o expect that i ts i nstr uctor s w i l l tea ch cl ass es i n a profess i onal m anner that does not dist re ss student s. C f. Vau ghn v. Vils ack, ___ F
. 3d

___, 2 0 1 3 WL 8 5 6 5 1 5 , a t * 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 3 ) ( ex pla i ni ng tha t e ven i fpl ai nti ff’ s co nd uct di d not r i se to the l eve lo fact i onabl e har ass m ent, p lai nti ffdi d not sati s fy l egitim ate ex p ecta tions w he re he w as no t pe rfor m in g h is job in a m an n er th at a n em p loy er w ou ld fi nd accep table). I fS mi l e y f a i l e d t o e s t ab l i s h a l l el e me n t s o fh e rp r i ma f ac i e c a s e un de r the i nd i r e c t metho d, the n we wo ul d not n ee d to p ro c ee d fu r t h e r. Id. B u t a s w e e x p lain ed in Vaughn , s o m et i m es the a na l y si s o fthe “ l eg i ti m at e ex pectat i ons” i nquir y m er ges with the pre text anal ysi s, w h ich is w hat S m i l ey ask s us to do her e in l i ght o f her sugge sti on that s he has pres ented e vi dence that Col um bi a t re ate d non-Arab a nd non- Pal est i ni an i nstr ucto rs ac c u se d of viola tin g th e Po licy in a m o r e fav or ab le m an n er . Cf. i d. at * 5. T he f ocu s of th e pre t e x t inqu iry is w h et h er t h e p ro ffer ed rea so n is a lie. Id. Tha t i s, the questi on “ i s no t wh etherthe em plo yer ’ s s tat ed nondis

crim in a t ory groun d f or the ac tion of w hich the p lai nt iff i s co m pl aining i s co r r ec t butwhethe ri t i s th e true gr ound ofthe em plo yer ’ s a cti on r atherthan b eing a pr e t e xtf o ra de c i s i o n b a s e d o n s o me o the r, u nd i s cl ose d gr ound.” For r e s terv. Raul and- BorgCorp. , 45 3 F
. 3d 416, 417 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. Col um bi a’ s l ett er to S m i l ey sta ted thats he h a d v i o l a t e d the P o l i c y . Co l umb i a a l s o a s s e r ts i t was j usti fied i n not ask i ng herto te ach m or e cl ass es i n l i ght ofheradm i ssi on that s he go ofed ar ound w i th her students, te ase d her stude n ts , a nd acknow l edged10 N o. 10

- 3747 th atS tu den t A w as ups etb y on e ofhe rc o m m en ts a nd bol ted o ut o fcl ass . Sm iley m ain ta in s t h at th e s c h oo l’s in ve st iga tio n in h e rc a s e wa s d e fi c i e n ta n d th a ti te v i d e n c e s p r e t e x t
. An em p loye r ’s i nv estigation, or lack the reof, can i nform th e p re t e x t in q u iry
. See H um ph ries , 474 F
. 3d at 407 ( fi ndi nge m pl oye r ’ s f ai l ur e to c o nduc t an y i nv es ti g at i o n, i ncl ud i ng f ai l ure to i nter vi ew the pla i nti ff, hel ped show th at em p loyer’ s reason f or disch arge w as a li e). I n C ha ney v. Pla i nf i e l d Heal t hc areCe nter, 612 F.3d 90 8 (7th C ir. 2010), f or exam ple , one of the case s to w hi ch Sm i l ey poi nts, th e d irector ofn urs ing d ecid ed to fire th e plaintiff w i thi n tw en ty-four hours ofr ecei vi ng a com pla i nt that th e pl aint i ffha d us ed pr o f an i ty, a d ec i si o n we sa i d the dir ecto r “r eached in an unusual way. ” Id. at 916
. A l though nor m al l y the unit supervi sor w oul d hav e inve sti gat ed ch ar g es in he runi t, the di r ec to rc o nduc te d hi s o wn i nv e s t i g a ti o n a nd de c i de d t o fi r e the p l a i nt i ff

. He ma de th at d ecision w ithou t con side ring the u nit su p ervisor’s concl usi on that the co m pla i nt was un fou n ded and al so w i thout i nter vi ew in g the pl ai nti ff

. The pl ai nti ffal so sh ow ed that anothe r em plo yee was not questi oned ab o u t f a i l i n gt o r e s p o n d t o a b e d a l a r m ( wh i c h th e e mp loye r l ater gave as anot he r reason to fi re the p lai nt iff) unti l t w o w eek s a fterthe i nci dent, and then was not d isc ip lin ed

. Id. Un d e r th o s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we c o nclud ed that a j ury sh ou ld d ecid e w h e t h e r the p lai nt iff’ s d isc h ar ge w as rac ially m ot iva te d

. Id. H ere, how ever, the oth e r i nv estigations of i ns tru ctors ac cus ed o fv i o l at i ngthe Po l i cyd o n ot s ug g es t th ati n-N o. 10

- 3747 11 str uctor s o utsi de herpro tected cl ass r ecei ved m or e f avo r ab l e tr ea tment
. S m i l eya r g ue s i n thi s su i t th atthe sc h oo l sh ou ld h av e in te rv iew ed oth er st u d en ts in Sm i l ey’ s cl ass befor e i t deci d ed i t would notas k herto tea ch furthercl ass es. The sc hool ’ s An ti

- Disc ri m i n at i on an d H arassm en t Policy p roced ure s d o not req uire intervi ew s o fo therwitnes ses . The o nly ge n er alr equi re m ents for invest igations at th e tim e w er e t o c ont act an d i nt erview the stu d en t a n d f a cu lty m em ber, and then to det erm ine ifthe Policy w as violated

. A s Sharon W il son -Taylor, the Dean o fS tudent s, expla i ned w hen ask ed to descr ibe the pr oce du re f orin vesti gat i ng a com pla i nt r ai sed bya st u d en t a ga in st a fac u lty m em b er : “A co m p lain t is r ai se d; the i nt ak e st affwi l lc ont act the s tu den t o rthe facu lty, and an interv iew is con d uc ted

. A nd then i t’s d eterm ined i f th e po li cy w as violat e d or not
. Th at’s pretty m uch the pr oce ss. ” S o no pro cedure re q u ired an i nvest i gat orto co ntact othe r w itness es, al though W il so n -T aylor stated that the p ractice w as th at ifa student o r f acul ty m em berst ate d ther e w er e witnesse s t o a n i nc i de nt, the wi tne s s e s wo ul d b e c o nt a c t e d. The other i nvest i gat i ons to w h ich S m i l ey poi nts do not sugg e s ttha ti ns t r uc t o r s o ut s i de h e rp r o t e c t e d c l a ss w er e t re ate d m or e f avorab l y than her

. The i nvest i gat i on of In st ru c to r 1 w as n ea rly id en tic al t o h e r s . T h er e, a stud en t m ade a w ri tte n com pla i nt ag ai nst a te acher al l eg i ng di sc r i m i natory s tatem en ts m ad e b y t he te ac he rt o war d the s tu den t. Do wns int er vi ewe d o nl y the stude nt, t ea ch er, a nd d ep ar tmentc ha i r, a nd Do wns concl ud ed the tea cherhad vi ol ate d the pol i c y. ( The departm ent c hai r deci ded notto te rm i nate I nstr uctor1;12 N o. 10

- 3747 L ove w as no t the de cision-m aker in t ha t case.) I ns tru ctor 2 w as ac cus ed o fus i ngr ac i als l ur s i n c l as s. Do wns int ervi ewe d the f ac ul tymem be ra nd thr ee s tu den ts , f o und the Po l i cy vi ol ate d, and the instr uctor w as notas ked to t ea cha ny mor e cl as se s. In Ins truct o r3 ’ s case, Do wns tw i ce i n te rv i ew ed the student wh o accused a f acul ty m em b ero fse xual hara ssm ent, and she i nter vi ew ed th e fa c u lty m em b er on c e. A l t h ou gh oth er p er so n s c ou ld ha ve c o r r o bo r at ed th e stude nt ’ s al l egati ons a nd the instru ctor d en ied ac ting inap p rop riately in his i nt ervi ew, Do wns di d no t interv i ew a ny o ne e l se . The i nst r uc t o rwa s n o ta s k e d t o t e a c h fur the rc l a s s es. I nstr uctor4 w as al so accused o fse xual hara ssm ent. Do wns i nt e r v i e we d the c o mpl a i nings t udenta nd a f or m erstud ent, and she cor re sponded with a nother f o r m ers tu den t vi a emai l

. S he f o und n o v i o l at i o n o fthe Po l i cy . Re g ar di ngIns truct o r5 , a fte ri nt er vi ewi ngthe co m pl aini ngs tu den t, Dow ns a nd W i l so n- Ta y l o rc o ncl ud ed the Pol i cy did notapplybec ause the a l l ege d sexualhar ass m ent t oo k pl ace offcam pu s. The se o ther inve st i g at i o ns do no t su g g es t th atpe r so ns outsi de Sm i l ey’ s cl ass wer e treat ed m or e f avo rabl y o r that Col um bi a’ s r eas on f orte rm i nati ng S m i l ey’ s e m plo ym ent was pre textual

. Dow ns i nter vi ew ed m or e than o ne c ur r en t stude nto n o nly one o cc as i o n, whens he i nter vi ew ed thre e students du ring th e investi gat i on o f I ns truct o r 2. Altho ug h S m i l ey m aint ains Downs i nt e r v i e we d the c o mp l a i n i n gs t u d e n ta n d t wo n o n - c o mp lai nin g s t u d en ts in tha t investigation , Do w ns ’s sta te m ent in herm em or andu m thatshe “i nter vi ew ed the s tudents and facul ty i nvol ved” m ake s i t uncl earN o. 10

- 3747 13 whe the ra l lthe i nt e r v i ewe d s t ud e nt s h a d c o mpl a i ne d, or j ust one. ( The nature of the cl ass sugge sts th at it like ly w ou ld h av e h ad m or e t h an th re e s tu d en ts , so it i s u nl i k e l y s he i nt e r v i e we d a l l “inv o l v e d” i f“ i nv o l v e d” m ea ns pe r so ns who he ar d the c o m m en ts. ) In a ny e ve nt al lthr ee students found the co m m ents the in st ructo r ma d e i n c l a s s o ffe n s i v e , w h e r e a s h e r e th e a l l e g e d c o mm en ts w er e d ire c te d on ly to w ar d on e s tu d en t (a lbe it m ade i n fro nt o fthe cl ass )
. N ot ab ly, the i nter vi ew o f m u ltip le s tu d en ts d id n otyield a m o r e f av or ab le re su lt f o rIns truct o r2 , a s he was f o und t o ha ve v i o l at ed th e P o l i c y a n d n o t a s k e d t o t e a c h a n y m o r e c l a s s e s . We al so no te tha t i n a l li ns ta nc es wher e Lo ve was the de ci si o nm ake r and a f acul ty m em berhad bee n deter m i ned to vi o l at e th e Po l i cy, Lo ve deci ded to no l o ng era skthe i nstr uctorto te ach cl ass es. D ow n s in te rv iew ed tw o for m er st u d en ts (on e v ia em ail) d u r i n g h er inv es tig at ion of Ins tr u c to r 4. C olu m b ia re aso nabl y a sse rt s that inter vi ew i ng f or m erstud ents i s di ffer ent than i nter vi ew in g curr ent s tudents, f or r ea so ns i nc l udi ngtha t th er e i s th e po te nt i alf o rcurr en t stude nt s to fee lc au g hti n the middl e o rpr es su r ed. And Downs di d no t i nt er vi ew o th ers tu den ts a fte rthe stu d en t’s all egation s against Ins tru ctor 3. T he stud en t’s al l ega ti ons aga i nst Instr uctor3 i ncl ud ed ass er ti ons th at coul d have be en co rr obo ra ted b y o therstud ents or perso ns affi l i ate d w i th the scho ol, b u t Down s di d not speak to anyo ne o therthan the s tudent and i nstr uctor ev en t h o u g h th e in st ru c to r d en ied en ga gin g in i m properco nd uct. S o othe r w i tness es w er e no t a l w ays i nter vi ew ed duri ng i n vest i gat i ons. Ind eed, the Pol i cy14 N o. 10

- 3747 sta tes thatco m pla i nts wil lbe tr eat ed i n confi dence to the e xtent feas ibl e. N ot ab ly t o o , i t is cle ar th at th e in te rv iew s o f m u ltip le p erson s in the inve stiga t io n s o f I ns tru ctors 2 an d 4 w ere des i g ne d t o c o r r o bo r at e th e al l eg at i o ns a g ains t t he i nst r uct o r, n o t to g athe ra po te nt i al l y f av o r ab l e ac co unt f orthe i nstructor
. A nd , ag ai n, the onl y o theri nvest i gati on wh er e Down s s poke w i th o ther c u rrent students ( th e i nv es ti g at i o n o fIns tr uc tor 2) a l so r es ul te d i n a fin d in g t h at th e in st ru c to r vio lat ed th e P olic y a n d w ou ld not be a ske d to re turn. The i nvest i gat i ons to w hi ch Sm iley p oin ts d o n otrefle c t f a v o r a b le t re at m en t t o s im il ar l y s i tuate d non-Arab instr uctor s. Sm i l ey al so m ai ntai n s that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on wh en i t dec lin ed to co nsi der a decl ar ati on a t t a c h e d t o h e r s u mma r yj u d g me n tr e s p o n s e fr o m a profess oratRoo seve l t Un i ver si ty, wh er e Love had ser ved as the A sso ci ate Pro vos t. The pro fess ordoes not att estthatLove m ade any dero ga to ryst ate m ents ab ou t A ra b s o r P ale st in ian s, b u t h e s ay s t h at a R oo se ve lt departm ent c hai r had m ade di spa ra gi ng co m m ents ab o utPa l es tini an s. He the n a ss er ts tha t i n a mem o r an du m iss u ed to the profess or ’ s uni on r epres entat i ve, Love m ade st ate m ents re gar d ing the chai rper son’ s co m m ents i ncl ud i ng tha t the chai rper son “had a r i ght t o express vie w s a s t o th e a p p r o p r i a te n es s o f th e t im e s p en t in cl as s o n the que st i o n [ o fthe Arab- I sr ae l ic o nfl i ct ]
. ” But the decl ar ati on di d not a tta ch the m em or andu m , so t h e d i st ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc re tio n w h en it dec l i ne d t o c o ns i deri t o n s um m ary j udg m en t afte rc o n-N o. 10

- 3747 15 cl udi ngtha t S m i l eydi d not sh o w tha t th e te st i m o ny w oul d be a dm i ssibl e. S ee Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( c) ( 4) ( decl ar ati ons i n supp or t of m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent m ust be m ade on perso nalkno w l edge a n d se t for th f acts th at w ou ld be ad m iss ible in e vid en c e); Art i cl eIIGun Sh o p, Inc . v . G o nz a les , 44 1 F
. 3d 492, 49 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “To be adm i ssibl e, docum ents m ust be aut h enti cate d by a n d a ttached to an affi davi t that m eet s the r equi re m ents ofRule 56 ( e) and the affi ant m ust be a perso n th ro u gh w h om th e e x h ibit s c o u ld be ad m itt ed int o e vid en ce.”). Sm i l ey al so ass er ts that Calabre se tol d her, “I ’ m not here f oryo u. I ’ m her e forthe student s.” S m i l ey ar gues th at thi s s tat em ent i s e vi dence Cal abr ese wanted to s ee Sm i l ey’ s e m plo ym ent e nd

. The st atem ent ind i cate s that the wel f ar e o f t h e students i s the pri or i ty f orCal abr ese , but i t doe s no t g o as f aras S m i l ey cont en d s. She al so ar gu es th at d iffer en c es be tw ee n L ov e’s te st im on y in h e rde p o s i t i o n a n d i n h e ra ffi d a v i te v i d e n c e p r e t e x t
. At her deposi ti on, S m i l ey’ s co unselas ked Love wh at sta tem ents Sm iley m ade i n thei r m eet i ng tha t co rr obo ra ted Stud ent A’s al l ega ti ons. W i thout the b enefi t o fr evi ew i ng the sum m ar y s he p re pared i m m edi ate l y a fter he rmeet i ngwi thS m i l ey, L ove ci te d e xa m pl es i nc l udi ng j oki ng and te asing o fstud ents and her i m press i on that Sm i l ey did not u nd er sta nd the boundari es between stu d en ts an d f acu lty. Lov e’s affidav it inc lud ed m ore det ai l th an he r depo si ti o n r es po ns e, but al l th e rea so ns she g ave i n h er a ffi davi t were sta ted i n herdeposi ti on o rs u mma r y me mo r a n d u m.16 N o. 10

- 3747 P re te x t d oe s n otex istif th e d ec isio n -m ak er h on es tly bel i eve d the nondisc ri m i natory re aso n f or i ts em p l oym en t a c tio n . S t o c k w e ll v. C ityof H a rvey, 59 7 F
. 3d 895, 902 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. That i s be cause courts ar e no t cha rg ed w ith d et er m in i n g b es t b u sin es s p ra c tic es . Id. O n th is re c or d , w e c on c lu d e t h a t Sm iley h as n otp ro vid ed su ffici en t ev i den ce o fpr et ex t an d tha t su m m ary j udg m en t w as p rop er.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

4- 30- 13