LEGAL\55816146\3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

LISA CALVENTE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SALMA GHANEM and DEPAUL 

UNIVERSITY, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-03366 

Judge John Robert Blakey 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL 

MATERIAL FACTS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 56.2(b)(3) 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

In Section II of this pleading, Defendants Salma Ghanem (“Dr. Ghanem”) and DePaul 

University (“DePaul” or “University”) submit their Response to Dkt. No. 82, Plaintiff’s Statement 

of Additional Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter “PSAF”)1 pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3). 

In this Section I, Defendants submit the following brief reply to Dkt. No. 84, Plaintiff’s Local Rule 

56.1(b)(3)(B) Response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of 

Their Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s RSOF”). 

Failure to abide by the Local Rules is grounds for the Court to strike briefs, disregard 

statements of fact and deem statements of fact admitted. See Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 

1 For ease of reference, Defendants cite to the various Local Rule 56.1 statements filed by the parties as follows: 

 Dkt. No. 47, Defendants’ Combined Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Fact in support of 

their Combined Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ SOF”) 

 Dkt. No. 84, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Fact Pursuant to Local Rule 

56.1(b)(2) (“Plaintiff’s RSOF”) 

 Dkt. No. 82, Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Fact Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) (“PSAF”) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:6750
LEGAL\55816146\3 2

625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Spitz v. Proven Winners North America, LLC, 969 F.Supp.2d 

994 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (“[N]othing in Local Rule 56.1 prohibits the movant from also responding to 

the nonmovant’s Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) statement and this bench’s experience is that parties often so 

respond.”). 

Plaintiff admits most of Dkt. No. 47, Defendants’ Statements of Undisputed Material Facts 

(hereinafter “SOF”). However, where Plaintiff does attempt to dispute certain statements, those 

attempts should be disregarded, and those facts should be deemed admitted, because Plaintiff’s 

RSOF fails to comply with Rule 56.1. See De v. City of Chicago, 912 F.Supp.2d 709, 716 (N.D. 

Ill. 2012) (disregarding plaintiff’s responses to the defendant’s statements of fact that do not 

comply with Local Rule 56.1). In particular, Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶¶ 28, 35, 53, 68, 69, 75, 82, 85, 88, 

86, 92, 125 154 are not supported by or misrepresent the evidence cited in the Plaintiff’s RSOF. 

See De, 912 F.Supp.2d at 712; see also, Morissette v. Ghosh, No. 08 C 2545, 2010 WL 1251443 

at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2010) (citing to a document that does not support the fact asserted is 

inadequate under Local Rule 56.1). 

Additionally, some of Plaintiff’s purported disputes of fact are based on argumentative 

and/or conclusory statements (e.g., Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶¶ 48; 54; 56; 60; 66; 70; 72; 103; 106; 107; 

108/ 112; 116; 117; 119; 120; 130; 142; 143; 144), or impermissibly assert a subjective 

disagreement with the fact (e.g., Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶¶ 48; 54; 56; 60; 66; 70; 72; 103; 106; 107; 

108; 112; 116; 117; 119; 120; 130; 142; 143; 144) and should be disregarded. See Bagwe v. 

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4413768, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2015) 

(“[A]rguing over the possible inferences stemming from an otherwise undisputed fact does not 

render that fact in dispute.”); Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2016) (“a plaintiff’s subjective 

beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:6751
LEGAL\55816146\3 3

In some instances, Plaintiff contradicts her prior sworn deposition testimony with a new 

declaration (e.g., Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶¶ 4; 35; 75; 83 and Ex. 1 to Plaintiff’s RSOF (hereinafter 

“Plainitff’s Dec.”) ¶4, 8, 10.) These facts should be disregarded for purposes of summary 

judgment. See Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp., No. 04 C 04123, 2012 WL 13048975, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 

Sept. 29, 2012) (“A party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by contradicting prior 

sworn testimony.”). 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s efforts to rely upon documents and information which were 

improperly obtained outside of the discovery process should be disregarded. (Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶ 

18.) See Glynn v. EDO Corp., 2010 WL 3294347 at *5 (D. Md., Aug. 20, 2010) (holding that it 

is “an improper litigation tactic” to obtain non-public internal business documents from an 

employee of an opposing party, and sanctioning plaintiff for acquiring such information from a 

current employee of defendant rather than through normal discovery channels); Chamberlain 

Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 270 F.R.D. 392 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citing Glynn at *5). 

Accordingly, the following paragraphs should be disregarded under Local Rule 56.1: 

Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶¶ 4; 18; 28; 35; 48; 53; 54; 56; 60; 66; 68; 69; 70; 72; 75; 82; 85; 88; 86; 92; 

103; 106; 107; 108; 112; 116; 117; 119; 120; 125; 130; 142; 143; 144.

II. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF 

ADDITIONAL FACT 

1. Dr. Calvente is an American of African, Latinx, and Asian descent. (Calvente Dec. 

¶1, copy attached as Exhibit A.) Dr. Calvente’s areas of research are the black diaspora, 

performance studies, and cultural studies with a particular interest in how performance and media 

ethnography can be used to interrogate discursive formations of racism, classism, and 

hetero/sexism in order to generate possibilities of belonging and social justice. (Answer at ¶8, copy 

attached as Exhibit B.) She was hired to teach and to research, principally, the uncomfortable 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:6752
LEGAL\55816146\3 4

subjects of race and racism in the United States. (Calvente Dec ¶4.) Dr. Calvente’s employment at 

DePaul ended at the end of the 2019/2020 academic year, following the denial of her application 

for tenure and the conclusion of her terminal contract. (Id.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first two sentences of PSAF ¶1. Although 

immaterial, Defendants dispute Plaintiff “was hired to teach and to research, principally, the 

uncomfortable subjects of race and racism in the United States.” Specifically, during her 

deposition, Plaintiff testified she applied for a position in intercultural and educational 

studies which was she claims was seeking someone who specialized in African American 

performance or Latina performance. (Dkt. No. 47-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Calvente 

Dep. 19-20.) Plaintiff’s declaration at paragraph 4 should be disregarded for this reason. 

Von Holdt, 2012 WL 13048975, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2012) (“It is well settled in this Circuit 

that litigants may not manufacture issues of fact by submitting affidavits that contradict the 

substance of their prior deposition testimony.”) Defendants do not dispute the fourth 

sentence of PSAF ¶1. 

2. Between August 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021, Dr. Calvente was unemployed. 

(Calvente Dec ¶5.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶2. 

3. Dr. Calvente is currently a tenure–track assistant professor at the University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”). (Calvente Dec ¶2.) Members of the academy see UNC as 

more prestigious than DePaul University (“DePaul” or the “University”), and UNC is a Research 

1 University as opposed to DePaul, which is a Research 2 University. (Zaeske Dep. 66:10–14, 

70:4–71:11, 93:14–95:4, 186:6–13, 207:10–12, copy attached as Exhibit C; Calvente Dep. 307:4–

310:11, copy attached as Exhibit D.) UNC also has more rigorous standards for obtaining tenure 

than DePaul. (Zaeske Dep. 201:1–203:9, 203:23–205:13.) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of 

PSAF ¶3. Defendants do not dispute that “UNC is a Research 1 University and that DePaul 

is a Research 2 University” according to Carnegie Classifications, which are based on 

research expenditures, the number of research Ph.D.’s conferred, and the number of nonfaculty research staff. (Dkt No. 60-2, Zaeske Dep. at 97.) However, these facts are 

immaterial. The remaining statements in PSAF ¶ 3 should be disregarded as improper 

under Local Rule 56.1 because they are immaterial, conclusory, vague, and improper 

argument See De v. City of Chicago, 912 F. Supp. 2d 709, 714 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (collecting cases) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:6753
LEGAL\55816146\3 5

(disregarding statements that are vague, argumentative, immaterial, or conclusory for 

failing to comply with Local Rule 56.1), and because these statements are impermissibly 

speculative, unreliable, and not relevant under FRE 702 for the reasons set forth in Dkt. No. 

60, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Dr. Zaeske’s Report and Testimony. 

4. In order to get hired into a tenure track position at a Research 1 University like the 

UNC, you must show that your chances of earning tenure are very high. (Zaeske Dep. 82:17–83:3, 

83:14–84:1, 186:14–190:8, 192:1–193:14.) 

RESPONSE: PSAF ¶4 should be disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1 

because it is immaterial, conclusory, vague, and improper argument. See De, 912 F. Supp. 

2d at 714, and because these statements are impermissibly speculative, unreliable, and not 

relevant under FRE 702 for the reasons set forth in Dkt. No. 60, Defendants’ Motion to Strike 

Dr. Zaeske’s Report and Testimony. 

5. That Dr. Calvente could earn a tenure–track position at UNC after being denied 

tenure at DePaul makes DePaul’s decision to deny tenure to Dr. Calvente highly questionable. 

(Zaekse Dep. 71:2–22.) 

RESPONSE: PSAF ¶5 should be disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1 

because it is immaterial, conclusory, vague, and improper argument. See De, 912 F. Supp. 

2d at 714, and because these statements are impermissibly speculative, unreliable, and not 

relevant under FRE 702 for the reasons set forth in Dkt. No. 60, Defendants’ Motion to Strike 

Dr. Zaeske’s Report and Testimony. 

6. Tenure track faculty cannot be terminated at will; rather, they can only be 

terminated in accordance with the Handbook. (Ghanem Dep. 11:24–12:21, copy attached as 

Exhibit E.) In the case of tenure–track but untenured faculty they may be involuntarily terminated 

for failing to (i) demonstrate that they are making adequate progress towards tenure following a 

pre–tenure review, or (ii) earn tenure. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6, copy attached as Exhibit F, and 

Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §§3.2, §3.3.1.1 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000028, 

30).) 

RESPONSE: Although the cited evidence does not support the first clause of the first 

sentence in PSAF ¶6, Defendants do not dispute that tenure track faculty are not at-will 

employees, and further do not dispute that tenure track faculty can be terminated in 

accordance with the DePaul Faculty Handbook. Although the cited evidence does not 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:6754
LEGAL\55816146\3 6

precisely support the second sentence in PSAF ¶6, Defendants do not dispute that two 

grounds for not renewing a tenure-track but untenured faculty member’s contract include 

failing to demonstrate that they are making adequate progress towards tenure following a 

faculty vote conducted in connection with a pre-tenure review, or failing to earn tenure. (See 

also Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶12) (admitting that the pre-tenure review process results in a vote 

regarding progress toward tenure and renewal); and Defendants’ Response to PSAF ¶ 1, 

above (admitting Plaintiff was terminated following tenure denial).) 

7. At DePaul, the process for obtaining tenure differs slightly depending on the 

structure of a candidate’s local academic unit. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart 

Declaration at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 

3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) In 

the College, which does not have separate departments, the first step in the tenure process is an 

evaluation of the candidate’s file by the personnel committee, to which the candidate may respond, 

and then the tenure faculty. (Id.; Murphy Dep. 43:7–15, copy attached as Exhibit G.) After the 

tenured faculty vote, the dean makes a separate recommendation as to whether the candidate 

should receive tenure. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at 

§§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 

3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) After the faculty 

votes and the dean makes her recommendation, the candidate’s file—including her complete 

dossier, the vote of the tenured faculty, the response by the candidate, and the recommendation of 

the dean—is sent to the University Board on Promotion and Tenure (the “UBPT”). (Rinehart Dec. 

¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 

3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that the process for obtaining tenure may 

involve more or fewer levels of review depending upon the structure of a candidates local 

academic structure, but disputes the characterization “differs slightly.” (See also, Plaintiff’s 

RSOF at ¶16) (admitting to the levels of review in units without departments); and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:6755
LEGAL\55816146\3 7

(Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶154) (admitting sentences 1-6 which describe the levels of review in a 

unit with departments).) Defendants further do not dispute that Plaintiff has described some 

of the components of the review process for obtaining tenure in the College. (See also

Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶¶14-17, the first sentence of ¶18, and ¶¶21-22) (admitting to fuller 

description of tenure process).) 

8. In an academic unit that has separate departments (for example, the College of 

Science and Health), the tenured faculty of the department first evaluates the candidate’s file and 

the candidate may respond to this evaluation. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart 

Declaration at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 

3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) 

Following the department’s evaluation, the department chair makes a recommendation as to 

whether the candidate should receive tenure. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart 

Declaration at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 

3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) 

Next, the tenured faculty of the college (or a separate committee thereof) evaluates the file and the 

candidate may respond to this evaluation. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart 

Declaration at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 

3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) The 

dean of the college then makes a recommendation as to whether the candidate should receive 

tenure. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6, copy attached as Exhibit E, and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration 

at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 3.5.5.6, 

3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) After these 

processes, the candidate’s file—including his complete dossier, the votes of the faculty, and the 

recommendation of both the department chair and of the dean—go to the UBPT. (Rinehart Dec. 

¶¶3, 6, copy attached as Exhibit E, and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §§3.5.1.1(a), §3.5.3, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:6756
LEGAL\55816146\3 8

3.5.4, 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.5.2, 3.5.5.3, 3.5.5.4, 3.5.5.5, 3.5.5.6, 3.5.6.1, 3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled 

Calvente–DePaul 000036–36, 39–43); Answer at ¶10.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has identified some of the levels 

of review involved in the tenure process in local academic units with departments. 

9. The UBPT’s recommendation is entitled to more weight than any recommendation 

that comes out of a local academic unit and Dr. Ghanem has acknowledged this fact. (Ghanem 

Dep. 50:9–51:3.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Dr. Ghanem testified that the UBPT 

“has more weight” or that it “carries a little bit more weight” “because” the Handbook states 

“that only in rare instances and for compelling reasons will the provost overturn a promotion 

or tenure recommendation made by UBPT.” (Dkt. No. 55-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, 

Ghanem Dep. at 48:15-51:10.)

10. DePaul’s rules are very clear that the provost should overturn the UBPT’s 

recommendation only in rare instances and for compelling reasons. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and 

Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000043); Answer 

at ¶10; Ghanem Dep. 48:20–50:18.) This means that the provost may not simply reject the UBPT’s 

recommendation because she disagrees with it. (Ghanem Dep. 57:2–58:8 and Exhibit 18 to 

Ghanem Dep. at page 2 (Bates labeled LC004069).) Rather, to overturn the recommendation of 

the UBPT—which represents voice of the faculty—the Provost should find that the UBPT 

recommendation was manifestly one that was groundless. (Id.) In other words, to overturn the 

UBPT, the provost must find that (i) doubt existed where the Board found none, or (ii) where the 

Board expressed its doubt, the Provost found that the Board’s reasons for doubt were completely 

unfounded. (Id.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Section 3.5.6.2 of the Faculty Handbook 

provides that the Provost may overturn the UBPT’s recommendation only in rare instances 

and for compelling reasons. Defendants state further that phrase “are very clear,” is 

improper argument for inclusion in a 56.1 statement. See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. The 

second, third, and fourth sentences of PSAF ¶10 should be disregarded as improper under 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:6757
LEGAL\55816146\3 9

Local Rule 56.1 because these statements are immaterial, unsupported by the record, 

conclusory, vague, and improper argument. See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. Specifically, 

LC0004069 is an end-of year-report from members of the 2019-2020 UBPT dated September 

23, 2020 (Plaintiff’s RSOF at pp. 100-108, also marked LC004068-4076 (hereinafter “2020 

Memo”). This 2020 Memo was authored by a UBPT distinct in composition from the 2018-

2019 UBPT that reviewed Plaintiff’s tenure case and was issued after Plaintiff had already 

left DePaul. (Id.) The 2020 Memo addressed among other things, the 2019-2020 UBPT 

members’ interpretation of the Faculty Handbook provision regarding the Provost’s 

authority to reject a UBPT’s recommendations on tenure “in rare circumstances and for 

compelling reasons.” (Id. at pp. LC004069-4070.) There is no record evidence that any 

portion of this report was ever adopted, and in fact, Dr. Ghanem testified to her 

disagreement with it. (Dkt. No. 55-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 61:4-

64:16.) Even so, the document itself describes its interpretation of “manifestly groundless” 

as circumstances where “doubt existed where the Board found none, or where the Board 

expressed its doubt, the Provost found the Board’s reasons(s) for doubt were completely 

unfounded.” (2020 Memo at p. LC004069.) Notably, here, Dr. Ghanem stated in her letter 

denying Plaintiff tenure that “before granting tenure, the university should have no 

reasonable doubt about the faculty member’s demonstrated qualifications and continued 

capacity to contribute to DePaul’s distinctive goals,” and that doubt existed for Dr. Ghanem 

because the “slim majority voting in favor of [her] application at the University level, [did] 

not, in [Dr. Ghanem’s] view, sufficiently answer the significant concerns raised by Plaintiff’s 

colleagues in Communication.” (See Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶ 130) (admitting to contents of Dr. 

Ghanem’s tenure denial letter).) 

Separately, however, these statements and the document should be disregarded 

because Plaintiff improperly obtained the document outside of the discovery process.2 See

Glynn v. EDO Corp., 2010 WL 3294347 at *5 (D. Md., Aug. 20, 2010) (holding that it is “an 

improper litigation tactic” to obtain non-public internal business documents from an 

employee of an opposing party, and sanctioning plaintiff for acquiring such information 

from a current employee of defendant rather than through normal discovery channels); 

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 270 F.R.D. 392 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citing Glynn at *5). 

PSAF ¶ 26 should be stricken for this independent reason. 

11. Dr. Ghanem testified that she did not understand the sentence “[t]his language, 

especially because both conditions are required, powerfully suggests that the decision to overturn 

may not be made simply because the provost would have voted differently had the provost been a 

voting member of the board” on page 2 of the document identified as Exhibit 18 to her deposition. 

(Ghanem Dep. 61:4–63:13.) 

2 Defendants put Plaintiff on notice of this improper litigation tactic at the time it became known to Defendants 

that Plaintiff had obtained the document. (Attached herein as Tab 1, Emails between counsel for Defendants and 

counsel for Plaintiff regarding 2020 Memo.)

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:6758
LEGAL\55816146\3 10

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, PSAF ¶11 should be disregarded as improper 

under Local Rule 56.1 because it is immaterial conclusory, vague, and improper argument. 

See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. As noted above, Plaintiff’s reliance on the 2020 Memo should 

be disregarded because this document is immaterial. Specifically, the 2020 Memo is an endof year-report from members of the 2019-2020 UBPT dated September 23, 2020. (2020 Memo 

at p. LC004068.) This 2020 Memo was authored by a UBPT distinct in composition from 

the 2018-2019 UBPT that reviewed Plaintiff’s tenure case and the report was issued after 

Plaintiff had already left DePaul. (Id.; Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶122.) The 2020 Memo addressed 

among other things, the 2019-2020 UBPT members’ interpretation of the Faculty Handbook 

provisions. (2020 Memo.) There is no record evidence that any portion of this report was 

ever adopted, and in fact, Dr. Ghanem testified to her disagreement with it. (Dkt. No. 55-1, 

Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 61:4-64:16.) In addition, these statements and 

the document should be disregarded because Plaintiff improperly obtained the document 

outside of the discovery process.3 See Glynn v. EDO Corp., 2010 WL 3294347 at *5 (D. Md., 

Aug. 20, 2010) (holding that it is “an improper litigation tactic” to obtain non-public internal 

business documents from an employee of an opposing party, and sanctioning plaintiff for 

acquiring such information from a current employee of defendant rather than through 

normal discovery channels); Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 270 F.R.D. 392 (N.D. Ill. 

2010) (citing Glynn at *5). 

12. Members of the UBPT are appointed by Faculty Council, which is the unit that 

represents the voice of faculty at DePaul with respect to shared governance. (Ghanem Dep. 58:18–

60:5.) Dr. Ghanem has never lost confidence in any of the members of the UBPT. (Ghanem Dep. 

55:23–56:8.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶12. 

13. Shared governance is a process where faculty input is taken in terms of different 

decisions at the University. (Ghanem Dep. 60:6–10.) Principles of shared governance 

acknowledge that faculty has a significant role, together with the administration, in the operation 

of the University, including the appointment, tenuring, and promotion of faculty. (Rinehart Dec. 

¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §1.2.1(3) (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

3 Defendants put Plaintiff on notice of this improper litigation tactic at the time it became known to 

Defendants that Plaintiff had obtained the document. (Attached herein as Tab 1, Emails between counsel for 

Defendants and counsel for Plaintiff regarding 2020 Memo.)

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:6759
LEGAL\55816146\3 11

000003).) While the provost has a faculty appointment, she is not considered to be faculty for 

purposes of shared governance. (Ghanem Dep. 60:11–14.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of PSAF ¶13. Although the 

cited evidence does not precisely support the second sentence in PSAF ¶14, Defendants do 

not dispute that Section 1.2.1(3) of the Faculty Handbook, which is cited by Plaintiff, states 

that “faculty is vested with primary governance responsibility of academic and scholarly 

activities and faculty personnel matter within the University, including . . . standards and 

procedures concerning faculty promotion, tenure, appointments, retention, and 

performance,” and that Section 1.2 states that “in order to carry out these responsibilities, 

the faculty will work closely with the academic administrators and the officers of the 

University.” (Dkt. No. 50-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab D, Ex. 1, p. 00003 at ¶1.2.) 

14. As a practical matter, few faculty take advantage of the appeals process, with the 

current University president having only heard one or two appeals from a provost’s decision to 

deny tenure. (Esteban Dep. 69:11–70:5, copy attached as Exhibit H.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Dr. Esteban testified he heard one or two 

appeals during his time as University President. Defendants dispute the clause, “As a

practical matter, few faculty take advantage of the appeals process,” and it should be 

disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1 because it is immaterial, conclusory, vague, 

assumes facts not of record, is unsupported by the cited authority, and improper argument. 

See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. 

15. By its plain language, DePaul’s Handbook permits an appeals committee (i.e., not 

the provost) to recommend a tenure denial be overturned because “the evaluation of the candidate 

[during the tenure or promotion process] deviated from procedures in the Faculty Handbook or in 

college or local academic unit guidelines, and the deviation was material to the final decision.” 

The decision as to whether procedures were violated belongs to the University President, who has 

discretion to award an appropriate remedy, which is not necessarily tenure. (Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 

and Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §5.1.2.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000080–

81).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of PSAF ¶15, except the 

phrase “(i.e., not the provost”),” which is unsupported by the cited authority and should be 

disregarded as improper argument. Specifically, the Faculty Handbook allows the provost 

to overturn a UBPT recommendation “only in rare instances and for compelling reasons,” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:6760
LEGAL\55816146\3 12

and Dr. Ghanem explained compelling reasons could include procedural grounds. (Dkt. No. 

11, Answer at ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 50-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab D, Ex. 1, p. 000043 at ¶ 3.5.6.3; 

Dkt. No. 55-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 51:8–54:18, 55:5-17.) The second 

sentence of PSAF ¶15 should be disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1 because the 

cited evidence does not support the statement and it is improper argument. See De, 912 F. 

Supp. 2d at 714. Defendants do not dispute, however, that on an appeal from a tenure denial 

alleging procedural violations, the President is the ultimate decisionmaker, who can 

implement an appropriate remedy. (Dkt. No. 50-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab D, Ex. 1, p. 

000043 at ¶ 5.1.2.3.) 

16. It is a violation of the Handbook to making tenure decisions based on a candidate’s 

race or her opposition to unlawful employment practices. (Answer at ¶11.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶16. 

17. Before granting tenure, the university should have no reasonable doubt about the 

faculty member’s demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity to contribute to DePaul’s 

distinctive goals and academic mission. (Ghanem Dep. 44:4–45:18; Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and 

Exhibit 1 to the Rinehart Declaration at §§3.1, 3.3.1.3, 4.2 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

000028, 31, 55).) Dr. Ghanem testified that she interpreted this language to mean that there should 

be no question about the faculty member’s demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity. 

(Ghanem Dep. 45:20–46:2.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶17. 

18. During her March 2015 formal review, the tenured faculty at the College found that 

Dr. Calvente was making adequate progress towards tenure with respect to her service, but not 

with respect to her teaching or her research. (Calvente Dep. 188:9–189:13 and Exhibit 50 (Bates 

labeled Calvente–DePaul 29079–29086).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶18. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:6761
LEGAL\55816146\3 13

19. Following the March 2015 formal review, Dr. Calvente met with Dr. Ghanem. 

During this meeting, Dr. Ghanem said that Dr. Calvente was an extraordinary teacher and that her 

Woodrow Wilson Fellowship was “a huge deal.” (Calvente Dep. 221:14–222:10, 300:1–301:3.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶19. 

20. During her November 2017 formal review, the faculty found that Dr. Calvente was 

making adequate progress towards tenure in the area of research, but inadequate progress towards 

tenure in the areas of teaching and service. (Calvente Dep. 240:11–11 and Exhibit 108 (Bates 

labeled Calvente–DePaul 0000253–264).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶20. 

21. Dr. Calvente increased her service between her March 2015 review and her 

November 2017 review. (Calvente Dec. ¶6.) 

RESPONSE: PSAF ¶21 should be disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1 

because it is immaterial and the phrase “increased her service” is conclusory, vague, and 

improper argument. Even if the Court accepts the assertion in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s 

declaration, Plaintiff was informed that the additional service she identifies therein was not 

the sort of “substantial commitments” that she needed to obtain tenure. (See Plaintiff’s 

RSOF at ¶¶ 56, 66) (admitting that in 2017 “the only substantive College-level committee on 

which Plaintiff was participating was the Term Faculty Review Committee”);( Plaintiff’s 

RSOF at ¶72) (admitting that her 2017 review informed her that the tenured faculty would 

“need to see significant changes in her service as evidenced through a track record of 

substantial contributions to her unit and meaningful committee work at the college level ... 

[and g]reater volunteering for university committee service[.]”); (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶87) 

(admitting she sought out university and college service in January 2018, after her 2017 

probationary review).) 

Additional facts concerning Dr. Calvente’s meeting with Salma Ghanem in December 2017. 

22. On or about December 16, 2017, Dr. Calvente met with Dr. Ghanem to discuss 

(among other things) her recent review by the College of Communication’s personnel committee 

and a vote by the tenured faculty of the College of Communications (the “College”) that Dr. 

Calvente’s contract not be renewed. (Calvente Dep. 256:6–258:3.) During that meeting, Dr. 

Calvente asked Dr. Ghanem to call DePaul’s Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity (“OIDE”) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:6762
LEGAL\55816146\3 14

in connection with the faculty’s recommendation that her contract not be renewed. (Calvente Dep. 

261:24–262:5; Calvente Dec. ¶8.) Dr. Ghanem made the call as Dr. Calvente requested; however, 

Dr. Ghanem told Dr. Calvente not to follow through with her complaint to OIDE, that she should 

wait until after her tenure vote, and that the then–provost knew about her case. (Calvente Dep. 

256:19–258:3, 262:7–20; Calvente Dec. ¶8.) Dr. Ghanem also told Dr. Calvente that she would be 

fine for tenure. (Calvente Dep. 300:1–22.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of PSAF¶22. Although 

immaterial, the second sentence of PSAF ¶22 should be disregarded because it contradicts 

her prior sworn testimony, which was that Plaintiff had told Dr. Ghanem she was going to 

file with OIDE, not that she asked Dr. Ghanem to make the call. (Dkt. No. 47-2, Defendants’ 

SOF at Tab B, Calvente Dep. at 255:6–263:9.); see also Von Holdt, 2012 WL 13048975, at *1 

(N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2012) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that litigants may not manufacture 

issues of fact by submitting affidavits that contradict the substance of their prior deposition 

testimony.”). Defendants do not dispute the third sentence of PSAF¶22, except the phrase 

“as Dr. Calvente requested,” which is not supported by the cited authority. Defendants 

dispute that Dr. Ghanem told Plaintiff she would be fine for tenure. Rather, Plaintiff testified 

that she told Dr. Ghanem she “surpassed the standards for tenure,” and Dr. Ghanem did not 

disagree. (Dkt. No 47-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Calvente Dep. 300:1-301:13.) 

23. Following her December 16, 2017 meeting with Dr. Ghanem, Dr. Calvente 

contacted Ms. Schaffer and told her that she did not want to proceed with her complaint of 

discrimination. (Calvente Dep. 262:7–20.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶23, except the phrase “following her 

December 16, 2017 meeting,” which is not supported by the record and which 

mischaracterizes the record. De v. City of Chicago, 912 F. Supp. 2d 709, 714 (N.D. Ill. 2012) 

Specifically, after Dr. Ghanem reported Plaintiff’s complaint to Ms. Schaffer, OIDE reached 

out to Plaintiff, and asked to set up a meeting, but Plaintiff chose not to take any further 

action at the time. (Dkt. No 47-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Calvente Dep. at 262:7–266:13); 

(Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶75) (noting only basis for denial is ¶8 of her declaration.) 

24. was a white tenure track professor in the College who was 

recommended for non–renewal in calendar year 2017, and whose contract Dr. Ghanem decided 

not to renew before Dr. applied for tenure. (Ghanem Dep. 143:22–144:2, 163:1–3; 

Calvente Dec. ¶7.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:6763
LEGAL\55816146\3 15

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶24.

25. On or around October 10, 2018, Dr. Calvente and Dr. met with Dr. Ghanem 

in her office to discuss discrimination within the College. (Calvente Dep. 270:21–271:6; Ghanem 

Dep. 152:4–8.) During that meeting Dr. ’s name came up. (Calvente Dep. 271:22–

272:14.) Dr. Ghanem said that she did not want to discuss Dr. ’s situation; however, Dr. 

Ghanem did let slip that she heard a rumor that she terminated Dr. so that she could 

later fire women of color with impunity. (Id.) In response, Dr. Calvente told Dr. Ghanem that she 

wrote the letter on Dr. ’s behalf that made this accusation. (Calvente Dep. 271:22–

272:14, 277:5–278:7.) And the record reveals that Dr. Calvente indeed wrote a letter in support of 

Dr. ’s appeal stating that Dr. was caught “in the crossfire” so that the College 

can show that it terminates white junior faculty so as to avoid a charge that it unfairly targets 

faculty of color. (Calvente Dep. 265:5–266:13 and Exhibit 132 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

0007095).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of PSAF ¶25. Defendants 

admit Dr. o’s name came up during the meeting because Dr. brought up his 

name. (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶82.) The first clause of the third sentence should be disregarded 

because it is not supported by the cited materials. The second clause of the second sentence 

contains improper argument with the statement that Dr. Ghanem “let it slip” and she could 

terminate women of color “with impunity.” See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. However, 

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff testified that Dr. Ghanem stated “she didn't want 

to hear about because then we were questioning her leadership and 

authority, and then she added that she heard a rumor that she was -- she terminated 's 

contract so she can fire women of color, so she could terminate women of color.·” (Dkt. No. 

47-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Calvente Dep. at 272.) Defendants do not dispute the fourth 

sentence of PSF ¶41, except for the clause “in response” and “that made this accusation,” 

which is not supported by the cited authority. Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff wrote a 

letter on Dr. ’s behalf, but she did not testify that she told Dr. Ghanem in that 

meeting that her letter “made this accusation.” And in fact, Plaintiff testified that during 

the meeting with Dr. Ghanem she did not accuse her of discriminatory or retaliatory conduct 

and her letter did not accuse Dr. Ghanem of any improper conduct. (Dkt. No. 47-2, 

Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Calvente Dep. 298:24-299:11; Dkt. No. 48-18, Defendants’ SOF 

at Tab B, Ex. 132 at pp. 7094-7097); (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶79, 82) (admitting that Plaintiff 

did not complain about Dr. Ghanem’s conduct in her letter.) Although immaterial, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:6764
LEGAL\55816146\3 16

Defendants dispute Plaintiff wrote in her letter that “Dr. was caught ‘in the 

crossfire’” so that the College can show it “terminates white junior faculty so as to avoid a 

charge that it unfairly targets faculty of color.” These statements are not supported by the 

cited authority, as they are not contained in her letter and should therefore be disregarded 

as improper under Local Rule 56.1. 

26. After Dr. Calvente told Dr. Ghanem that she wrote the letter on Dr. ’s 

behalf, Dr. Ghanem called Ms. Schaffer at OIDE and left a voice mail stating that Dr. and 

Dr. Calvente believed themselves to be victims of discrimination. (Calvente Dep. 272:15–273:4.) 

Then Dr. Ghanem ended the meeting. (Calvente Dep. 273:5–273:7.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶26.

27. Dr. Ghanem, as a person in a supervisory position at the College, had a duty to 

report any complaints of discrimination brought to her by faculty to OIDE. (Ghanem Dep. 73:9–

74:4.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶27. 

28. After the October 10, 2018 meeting, Dr. Calvente and Dr. Ghanem never again had 

a meaningful conversation. (Calvente Dec. ¶9.) 

RESPONSE: PSAF ¶28 should be disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1 

because it is immaterial and the phrase “meaningful conversation” is conclusory, vague, and 

improper argument. Additionally, Plaintiff’s declaration regarding this statement should be 

disregarded because it is not consistent with Plaintiff’s deposition testimony which was that 

Dr. Ghanem told them that she wanted to continue the conversation, and that they should 

schedule another meeting with her. (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶83; Dkt. No. 47-2, Defendants’ SOF 

at Tab B, Calvente Dep. at 272:16–273:4.); see also Von Holdt, 2012 WL 13048975, at *1 

(N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2012) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that litigants may not manufacture 

issues of fact by submitting affidavits that contradict the substance of their prior deposition 

testimony.”) 

29. In recommending that Dr. Calvente receive tenure, the UBPT found that “Dr. 

Calvente’s teaching, as evidenced by consistently high student evaluations, a strong student report, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:6765
LEGAL\55816146\3 17

and positive peer evaluations, met the standard of consistent effectiveness established in the 

Faculty Handbook.” (Answer at ¶28 and Exhibit 5 to Complaint at pages 1–2.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶29, but note that the quoted language 

reflects the findings made by the 4-member UBPT majority, not the full 7-member UBPT. 

(Dkt. No. 48-34, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Exhibit 215 at pp. 23086-23087.) 

30. In recommending that Dr. Calvente receive tenure, the UBPT also examined Dr. 

Calvente’s research and scholarly contributions and found that her “total body of work consists of, 

at minimum, 3 peer–reviewed articles and 3 peer–reviewed book chapters during the probationary 

period, in additional [sic] to 6 papers in international conferences and 10 presentations in national 

conferences,” and that the “significance and quality of her work were praised by [her] external 

reviewers and echoed by the faculty in the unit report.” (Answer at ¶28 and Exhibit 5 to Complaint 

at pages 2–3.) Thus, the UBPT found “scholarship to have met the minimum standard of notable 

in the Faculty Handbook.” (Answer at ¶28 and Exhibit 5 to Complaint at page 3.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶30, but note that the second and third 

quoted sections reflect the findings made by the 4-member UBPT majority, not the full 7-

member UBPT. (Dkt. No. 48-34, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Exhibit 215 at p. 23088.) 

31. In recommending that Dr. Calvente receive tenure, the UBPT found Dr. Calvente’s 

overall service contributions to be “sufficiently strong to meet the criteria for service in the Faculty 

Handbook.” (Answer at ¶28 and Exhibit 5 to Complaint at page 3.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶31, but note that the quoted language 

reflects the findings made by the 4-member UBPT majority, not the full 7-member UBPT. 

(Dkt. No. 48-34, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Exhibit 215 at p. 23088.) 

32. Notwithstanding the UBPT’s recommendation that Dr. Calvente receive tenure, Dr. 

Ghanem rejected the recommendation. (Answer at ¶29 and Exhibit 6 to Complaint.) In so doing, 

Dr. Ghanem wrote that Dr. Calvente received a careful review at all levels and that experienced 

faculty had evaluated her work. (Id.) She also wrote that she did not consider the UBPT’s 4–3 vote 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:6766
LEGAL\55816146\3 18

to outweigh the alleged significant concerns raised at the College level, which voted 2–19 against 

Dr. Calvente. (Id.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶32. 

33. An appeals committee found that Dr. Calvente was unfairly evaluated at multiple 

points during her probationary period and that procedural deviations were material to the final 

decision to deny tenure and promotion. (Answer at ¶31 and Exhibit 7 to the Complaint.) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute the appeals committee 

dismissed two grounds of appeal, including the ground of discrimination, and made a finding 

on the third ground, and that Plaintiff has accurately summarized the finding on the third 

ground of appeal in PSAF ¶33. 

34. According to Dr. Ghanem, Dr. had no record of complaining about 

discrimination within his academic unit or the broader University. (Ghanem Dep. 67:18–21.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶34. 

35. In evaluating Dr. ’s application and rejecting it by a vote of 6–1, the UBPT 

identified significant concerns with Dr. ’s teaching, including that (i) Dr. ’s teaching 

evaluations are frequently below three on a five–point scale, (ii) there was a pattern in Dr. h’s 

evaluations that showed an inability to communicate with the majority of his students, (iii) forty 

to fifty percent of Dr. ’s students rated Dr. ’s ability to communicate subject matter 

as inadequate, and (iv) the regular recurrence of student concerns with communicating his 

expectations for performance, the criteria by which performance is to be evaluated, and the 

timeliness of his feedback to students, raises questions about the consistent effectiveness of Dr. 

’s teaching. (Ghanem Dep. 102:3–103:9 and Exhibit 27 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

037293–95).) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶35, except that 

the terms “significant concerns” and “with the majority of his students” are not supported 

by the evidence cited and are improper argument. See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:6767
LEGAL\55816146\3 19

36. In continuing to evaluate Dr. ’s application for promotion, the UBPT next 

noted significant concerns about Dr. ’s scholarship, including the quantity of the work, the 

consistency of the work, and the quality of the work. (Ghanem Dep. 102:3–103:9 and Exhibit 27 

(Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 037293–95).) More specifically, the UBPT noted that Dr. 

’s scholarship appeared limited to multi–authored pieces and that the UBPT was not 

provided (despite its requests) information concerning Dr. ’s contributions to those multi–

authored pieces. (Ghanem Dep. 102:3–103:9 and Exhibit 27 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

037293–95).) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶36, except that 

the term “significant concerns” is not supported by the evidence cited and is therefore, 

improper argument. See De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. 

37. Dr. Ghanem agrees that Dr. received a careful review at all levels, that 

experienced faculty evaluated Dr. ’s work, and that the UBPT voted overwhelmingly 

against Dr. ’s application for tenure. (Ghanem Dep. 105:16–106:1.) Dr. Ghanem also read 

the entirety of the UBPT’s report recommending that Dr. not receive tenure before she 

granted tenure to Dr. . (Ghanem Dep. 102:3–103:9 and Exhibit 27 (Bates labeled Calvente–

DePaul 037293–95).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute PSAF ¶37. 

38. Dr. Ghanem wrote that she awarded tenure to Dr. in recognition of his 

“achievements in scholarship, teaching, and service, and in expectation of [his] continued service 

to [DePaul’s] students, the university, and [his] field.” (Ghanem Dep. 66:13–67:16 and Exhibit 1 

(Bates labeled DePaul–Calvente 013833–34.) Dr. Ghanem did not write that she awarded tenure 

to Dr. because she believed that he failed to receive a fair process. (Id.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:6768
LEGAL\55816146\3 20

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of PSAF ¶38. Although 

immaterial, the second sentence of PSF ¶59 misrepresents the evidence and should therefore 

be disregarded. See Boyd v. City of Chicago, 225 F.Supp.3d 708, 715 (N.D. Ill. 2016). 

Specifically, Dr. Ghanem testified that her “compelling reason [for awarding Dr. 

tenure] was a procedural issue based on the informal review that he had received six months 

before he was going up for tenure where he had a unanimous endorsement by his 

department.” (Dkt. No. 55-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 106.) Although 

Defendants admit Dr. Ghanem did not use the term “fair process” in her letter, Dr. Ghanem 

wrote that “[his] department colleagues . . . had voted unanimously (8-0) during a formal 

review less than six months earlier to extend [his] contract, in full knowledge that [he] would 

be applying for tenure the following fall” and that although the formal review “include[d] a 

vote on contract renewal, [it did not], as required by the Handbook, include a vote on 

whether [he was] making adequate progress toward tenure.” (Dkt. No. 55-2, Defendants’ 

SOF at Tab F, Exhibit 1 at pp. 013833-013834.) 

39. Dr. Ghanem was asked how, in light of the fact that Dr. received a careful 

review at all levels, that experienced faculty evaluated Dr. ’s work, and that the UBPT voted 

overwhelming against him, that anyone could say that “the university has no reasonable doubt as 

to Dr. 's demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity to contribute to DePaul's 

distinctive goals of academic mission when he received a six–to–one no vote at the UBPT.” 

(Ghanem Dep. 105:16–13.) Dr. Ghanem was unable to provide a substantive answer to this 

question and, instead, relied on alleged procedural defects in Dr. ’s process to support her 

decision. (Id.) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s counsel 

asked Dr. Ghanem some form of the question stated in the first sentence of PSAF ¶39. 

Although immaterial, Defendants dispute the first clause of the second sentence, 

which states “Dr. Ghanem was unable to provide a substantive answer to this question.” This 

clause does not comply with Local Rule 56.1 and should be disregarded because it is 

conclusory and improper argument and is unsupported by the record. See De, 912 F. Supp. 

2d at 714. It is also unsupported by the record evidence, which demonstrates she did answer 

counsel’s question and in any event, Dr. Ghanem provided a “substantive” explanation for 

her decision to award tenure to Dr. , based on the merits of his case in her letter to 

him. (Dkt. No. 55-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Exhibit 1 at pp. 013833-013834.) 

Specifically, she explained that the Chemistry Chair’s letter “systematically and 

convincingly” countered concerns about his teaching effectiveness and research agenda; that 

he “clearly satisfied” the Chemistry Department’s guidelines that require faculty to publish 

at minimum one peer-reviewed publication every other year, with at least one in the area of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:6769
LEGAL\55816146\3 21

expertise for which he was hired; and that her “own reading” of his teaching record more 

closely matched the Department and College reports.4 (Id. at 013833) In awarding tenure, 

based on her review of his dossier, including Dr. ’s responses to the department, 

college, and UBPT recommendation reports, and her attendance at the UBPT hearing, she 

wrote that her decision was in “recognition of [his] achievements in scholarship, teaching, 

and service.” (Id. at 013834.) Dr. Ghanem also addressed the UBPT’s substantive concerns 

about Dr. ’s teaching and research record during his probationary period. (Id. at 

013833-013834.) Specifically, with respect to research, Dr. Ghanem wrote: 

[T]he formal review summary evaluation of your research record clearly 

indicates that you had met the bar for promotion and tenure: “The review 

committee is pleased to see the progress that Dr. has made since joining 

the department as an Assistant Professor. for promotion and tenure suggest 

that faculty should publish at minimum one peer-reviewed publication every 

other year, with at least one publication in the area of expertise for which the 

candidate was hired. Dr. has already clearly satisfied this minimum 

requirement. The committee encourages him to maintain his research 

momentum to further strengthen his case for promotion and tenure on the 

basis of research.” There is no indication that your research momentum has 

flagged since this evaluation, and some probability that the perceived lack of 

coherence in your research agenda is an effect of the cross-disciplinary nature 

of your research and scholarship. For all the above reasons, I consider your 

record of research and publication to have met the standard for promotion 

and tenure. 

(Id.) With respect to teaching, Dr. Ghanem wrote: 

My own reading of your teaching record more closely matches the department 

and college reports. I am sure that, given your own focus on science education, 

you will continue to develop and improve your teaching, as needed. 

(Id. at 013834.) Additionally, Dr. Ghanem further stated that she rejected the UBPT’s 

recommendation against tenure because less than six months prior to the commencement of 

his tenure case, Dr. had received a performance review that had unanimously 

indicated everything was excellent and his department’s tenure review report referenced 

that he “either meets or exceeds” the department’s teaching expectations, and that while the 

faculty unanimously voted to extend his contract in that review they failed to vote on his 

progress toward tenure as required by the Handbook, and Dr. Ghanem felt that reversal of 

the UBPT’s recommendation was warranted on procedural grounds. (Id. at 013833-013834; 

4 See also Dkt No. 50-5, Tab D, Exhibit 4 at p. 36971-76 ( the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and 

Biochemistry stating she “strongly” recommended Dr. for promotion and tenure, noting her 

disagreement with the Department’s Personnel Committee); Id. at pp. 36984-36986 (The Dean writing “[g]iven 

that Dr. has met the teaching criterial, exceeded the service criteria and objectively met the scholarship 

criteria, I recommend favorable action on Dr. candidacy to associate professor with tenure.”) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:6770
LEGAL\55816146\3 22

see also Dkt. No. 55-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 54–55, 106.) Specifically, 

Dr. Ghanem stated in her letter: 

[Y]our department colleagues, who were evenly divided in their evaluation of 

your application for the above reasons, had voted unanimously (8-0) during a 

formal review less than six months earlier to extend your contract, in full 

knowledge that you would be applying for tenure the following fall (per your 

chair, who clarified the timing subsequent to the UBPT hearing). The Unit’s . 

. . formal review report5 (which you submitted as an addition to your dossier) 

includes a vote on contract renewal, but does not, as required by the 

Handbook, include a vote on whether you were making adequate progress 

toward tenure. 

(Id. at p. 013833.) Defendants do not dispute that Dr. Ghanem “relied on alleged procedural 

defects in Dr. process to support her decision.” 

40. Although Dr. suffered race–based aggressions within the College, she did 

not publicly complain about discrimination at DePaul or within the College until after she received 

tenure because she was afraid of retaliation. ( Dep. 64:8–70:2, 74:12, 89:6–94:5.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants dispute PSAF¶40. As Plaintiff admitted, Dr. 

complained of race discrimination to Dr. Ghanem in October 2018, and pursued that 

complaint for some period of time. ((See Plaintiff’s RSOF ¶ 82) (admitting the first sentence 

that “on October 10, 2018, Plaintiff and Dr. met with Dr. Ghanem in person to discuss 

their concerns about their perceived racially hostile environment in the College”); (Plaintiff’s 

RSOF ¶ 84) (admitting that Dr. testified that she decided to pursue that complaint 

with OIDE).) 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Anneliese Wermuth 

Attorney for Defendants, Salma Ghanem and 

DePaul University 

Anneliese Wermuth (#6270970) 

Nandini K. Sane 

Cozen O’Connor 

123 N. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1800 

5 See also Dkt No. 50-5, Tab D, Exhibit 4 at p. 37272-37286 (the Departmental Personnel Committee noting that 

Dr. research record had “already clearly satisfied the minimum requirement” for promotion and 

tenure (p. 3728), and stating, “Dr. has contributed notable service at all levels of the university and to 

the profession/community,” (p. 37285), and that “[c]lose examination of the materials submitted by Dr. 

made clear that, overall, he exhibits a number of characteristics typical of an effective teacher” (p. 37273).) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:6771
LEGAL\55816146\3 23

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: 312/474-7876 

Email: awermuth@cozen.com 

Email: nsane@cozen.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on January 31, 2022 she electronically filed 

the foregoing with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel of 

record: 

Fitzgerald T. Bramwell 

Law Offices of Fitzgerald Bramwell 

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

bramwell@fitzgeraldbramwell.com 

s/ Anneliese Wermuth 

Anneliese Wermuth 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 95 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:6772