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 MATERIAL FACTS 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 56.1 

Defendants, Salma Ghanem (“Dr. Ghanem”) and DePaul University (“DePaul” or 

“University”), by their attorneys, Cozen O’Connor, and pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), 

submit this Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Plaintiff’s SOF”)1

in support of her Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Facts 

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

Dec. ¶1, copy attached as Exhibit A.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶1. 

2. 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 

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”); and, 

 Dkt. No. 89, Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Fact Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 in support of her Partial 

Motion for Summary Judgment(“Plaintiff’s SOF”).

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:6804
2

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.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶2. 

3. Dr. Calvente is a former tenure–track professor at DePaul University (“DePaul” 

or the “University”) in the College of Communication (the “College”). (Calvente Dec. ¶¶4, 6; 

Answer at 1.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶3. 

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 during the 2018/2019 academic 

year and the conclusion of her terminal contract. (Calvente Dec. ¶4.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶4. 

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

(Calvente Dec ¶5.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶5. 

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

North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”). (Calvente Dec ¶2.) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶6. 

7. 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 G; Calvente Dep. 307:4–310:11, copy attached as Exhibit 

C.) 

RESPONSE: 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 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:6805
3

based on research expenditures, the number of research Ph.D.’s conferred and number of 

non-faculty research staff. (Dkt. No. 60-2, Zaeske Dep. at 97.) However, these facts should 

be disregarded as immaterial. The remaining statements in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶ 7 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) (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. 

8. 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: Plaintiff’s SOF ¶8 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. 

9. 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: Plaintiff’s SOF ¶9 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. 

10. Salma Ghanem (“Dr Ghanem”) was the Dean of the College from August 2014 

through October 2018, when she was appointed acting provost. (Ghanem Dep. at 16:16–18, 

29:9–10, copy attached as Exhibit D.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶10. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:6806
4

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

terminated in accordance with the DePaul Faculty Handbook (the “Handbook”). (Ghanem Dep. 

11:24–12:21.) 

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

Plaintiff’s SOF ¶11, 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. 

12. 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. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6, copy attached as 

Exhibit E, and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §§3.2, §3.3.1.1 (Bates labeled 

Calvente–DePaul 000028, 30).) 

RESPONSE: Although the cited evidence does not precisely support the statements 

in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶12, Defendants do not dispute that two grounds for not renewing a 

tenure-track but untenured faculty member’s contract includes 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 on progress toward 

tenure and renewal); and Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s SOF ¶ 4, above (admitting 

Plaintiff was terminated following tenure denial).) 

13. A candidate may be evaluated as not making adequate progress towards tenure 

during a formal or informal pre–tenure review, with informal reviews occurring yearly and 

formal reviews occurring every two years. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First 

Rinehart Declaration at §§3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000030–31).) 

RESPONSE: Although the cited evidence does not precisely support the statements 

in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶13, Defendants do not dispute that the cited materials establish that 

during formal reviews and informal reviews, a candidate is evaluated on progress towards 

tenure, with formal reviews occurring “no less often than every two years,” and informal 

reviews occurring “in years in which a formal review is not conducted.” (Plaintiff’s RSOF 

at ¶12; Dkt. No. 50-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab D, Ex. 1, p. 00031 at ¶3.3.1.2.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:6807
5

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

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

First 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).) 

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

in a unit with departments)). 

15. 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 tenured faculty. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to 

the First 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).) After the tenured faculty vote, the dean makes a separate recommendation as to whether the 

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

Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First 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).) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:6808
6

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has described some 

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).) 

16. 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. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the 

First 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).) 

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

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

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).) Next, the 

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

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

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).) The dean 

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

(First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First 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).) 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. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to 

the First 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, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:6809
7

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).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has identified some 

components of the levels of review involved in the tenure process in local academic units 

with departments. 

17. 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.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶17. 

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

decisions at the University. (Ghanem Dep. 60:6–10.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶18. 

19. 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. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart 

Declaration at §1.2.1(3) (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000003).) 

RESPONSE: Although the cited evidence does not precisely support the statement 

in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶19, 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.) 

20. DePaul’s system of faculty evaluation “relies heavily on the view of faculty. 

Exercising professional judgment, experienced faculty evaluate the work of their colleagues for 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:6810
8

renewal, promotion, and tenure.” (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3,6 and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart 

Declaration at §3.1 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000028).) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶20. 

21. 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 that “the provost has a faculty 

appointment” and do not dispute that she “is not considered to be faculty.” (Dkt. No. 55-1, 

Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 60:11-14.) Although immaterial, Defendants 

dispute that the clause “for the purposes of shared governance” as unsupported by the 

cited evidence and it should therefore be disregarded for failure to comply with Local Rule 

56.1. 

22. 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶22. 

23. 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” than the recommendations 

from the College “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.) 

24. The UBPT only evaluates a candidate for tenure once. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 

and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §3.5.6.1 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

000042–43).) This is in contrast to pre–tenure reviews at tenure–track faculty member’s local 

academic unit, which occur multiple times before a candidate is evaluated for tenure. (First 

Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §§3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2 (Bates 

labeled Calvente–DePaul 000030–31).) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:6811
9

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, the statements in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶24 that the 

“UBPT only evaluates a candidate for tenure once,” and “pre-tenure reviews at tenuretrack faculty member’s local academic unit . . . occur multiple times before a candidate is 

evaluated for tenure,” are not supported by the cited evidence and the statements should 

therefore be disregarded for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1. Further, while 

Defendants do not dispute the UBPT is not involved in formal or informal probationary 

tenure-line reviews, and thus only reviews a candidate for tenure one time, local academic 

units also only review a candidate for tenure one time. (See Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶¶12-13) 

(admitting local unit’s role in conducting pre-tenure reviews) and (Plaintiff’s RSOF at 

¶¶14-17) (admitting local unit’s role in conducting tenure review).) Therefore, Defendants 

dispute that Plaintiff’s comparison between probationary reviews and tenure reviews is 

material or supported by the cited evidence. 

25. DePaul’s policies are very clear that the provost should overturn the UBPT’s 

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

and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §3.5.6.3 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 

000043); Answer at ¶10; Ghanem Dep. 48:20–50:18.) 

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. 

26. That the provost should overturn the UBPT’s recommendation only in rare 

instances and for compelling reasons 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.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:6812
10

RESPONSE: Plaintiff’s SOF ¶26 should be disregarded as improper under 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). 

Plaintiff’s SOF ¶ 26 should be stricken for this independent reason. 

27. 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; First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 

and Exhibit 1 to the First 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 

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 #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:6813
11

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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶27. 

28. After Dr. Calvente was hired at the College, tenured faculty member 

 directed a so–called joke at Dr. Calvente where the punchline was the word “nigger.” 

(Calvente Dep. 267:21–268:23.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff testified that in 2011, Dr. 

made the joke referenced in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶28. Defendants deny that this statement is 

material, however, because it is a stray remark made seven years prior to the tenure 

decision in her case, and Plaintiff has waived any argument based on this statement 

because she does not argue this statement as evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory 

intent in her summary judgment pleadings. (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶147; Dkt. No. 87, 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment); see also Cowan v. Glenbrook Sec. Services, Inc., 123 F.3d 438, 444 (7th Cir. 

1997). 

29. After Dr. Calvente was hired at the College, tenured faculty member 

 made a racist comment about communities of color in the south and west side of 

Chicago. (Calvente Dep. at 91:9–93:24, 108:10–19.) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Dr. 

was identified as a peer reviewer for Dr. Calvente. (Calvente Dep. at 91:9–93:24, 108:10–19.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff testified that in academic year 

2011-12, Dr. made a comment about communities in the South and West side of 

Chicago, which Plaintiff immediately challenged as racially insensitive. (Plaintiff’s RSOF at 

¶148.) Defendants deny that this statement is material because it was a stray remark made 

six to seven years prior to the tenure decision in her case, and Plaintiff has waived any 

argument based on this statement because she does not argue this statement as evidence of 

discriminatory or retaliatory intent in her summary judgment pleadings. (Id.; Dkt. No. 87, 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment); Cowan, 123 F.3d at 444. 

30. The College is small based on the size of its faculty. (Murphy Dep. at 40:20–41:1, 

copy attached as Exhibit K.) The faculty within the College are also generally collegial with each 

other. (Murphy Dep. 82:12–22.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:6814
12

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶30, except that the first 

sentence does not fully reflect Dr. Murphy’s testimony. Dr. Murphy testified that the 

College is a small college based on the “size of faculty and size of students.” (See Plaintiff’s 

RSOF at ¶5.) 

31. In 2015, after the personnel committee in the College recommended that Dr. 

Calvente’s contract not be renewed, but before the tenured faculty in the College voted on 

whether to recommend Dr. Calvente’s contract be renewed, Dr. Calvente wrote a rebuttal to the 

personnel committee that stated that “[t]he “hostility” in my evaluations is the result of the 

structural racism and the normalization of whiteness within the academy that unfairly scrutinizes 

faculty of color, primarily women, wo do not reinforce the stands and norms of white (male) 

supremacy.” (Exhibit No. 50 to Calvente Dep. at Bates label Calvente–DePaul 029085.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶31. 

32. The tenured faculty at the College twice recommended that Dr. Calvente’s 

contract not be renewed before Dr. Calvente applied for tenure: the tenured faculty 

recommended that Dr. Calvente’s contract not be renewed in 2015 and the tenured faculty 

recommended that Dr. Calvente’s contract not be renewed in 2017. (Exhibit No. 50 to Calvente 

Dep. at Bates label Calvente–DePaul 029086; Calvente Dep. 240:11–14.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶32.

33. After each occasion that the tenured faculty at the College recommended that Dr. 

Calvente’s contract not be renewed, Dr. Ghanem renewed Dr. Calvente’s contract. (Calvente 

Dep. 255:10–14, Ghanem Dep. 127:21–128:2.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶33.

34. After the first occasion where Dr. Ghanem renewed Dr. Calvente’s contract, she 

said that Dr. Calvente was an extraordinary teacher, and she said that Dr. Calvente’s receipt of a 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:6815
13

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶34.

35. In 2015, after the tenured faculty at the College recommended that Dr. Calvente’s 

contract not be renewed, Dr. Calvente called DePaul’s Office of Institutional Diversity and 

Equity (“OIDE”) and raised an internal complaint of discrimination. (E.g., Calvente Dep. at 

225:7–15, 230:9–12.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶35.

36. OIDE is the organization tasked with investigating internal complaints of 

discrimination at DePaul. (Ghanem Dep. 72:24–73:4.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶36.

37. In investigating Dr. Calvente’s internal complaint of discrimination, OIDE 

interviewed fifteen individuals, including ten members of the faculty of the College and each 

member of the personnel committee who recommended Dr. Calvente’s contract not be renewed 

in calendar year 2015. (Diaz Declaration at Exhibit 1 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 0006968), 

copy attached as Exhibit G.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶37. 

38. After the second occasion where Dr. Ghanem renewed Dr. Calvente’s contract, 

Dr. Calvente told Dr. Ghanem that she wanted to present another claim of discrimination with 

OIDE. (Calvente Dec. ¶8.) Ghanem told Dr. Calvente not to follow through with a complaint of 

discrimination 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶38 or 

the statement in the second sentence that Dr. Ghanem told Plaintiff that the then-provost 

knew about her case. Defendants further admit that in response to Plaintiff crying and 

stating that she wanted to file another complaint but doing so was time–consuming, Dr. 

Ghanem told her she should wait to file a claim until after tenure. (See Plaintiff’s RSOF at 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:6816
14

¶74) (admitting relevant factual statements).) 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.) 

39. llo 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.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶39.

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

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

Ghanem Dep. 152:4–8.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶40.

41. During the 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 because she 

felt that complaints about Dr. were a challenge to her authority as dean; 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 on Dr. 

’s behalf 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).) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:6817
15

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Dr. ’s name came up during the 

meeting because Dr. brought up his name. (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶82.) The first 

clause of the second sentence of Plaintiff’s SOF ¶41 should be disregarded because it is not 

supported by the cited materials in that Plaintiff’s cited testimony does not reference 

“complaints about Dr. .” 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 third sentence of Plaintiff’s SOF ¶41, except for the clause “in response” and 

“that made this accusation,” which such statements are not supported by the cited 

materials. Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff wrote a letter on Dr. ’s behalf, but 

the cited testimony demonstrates that 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 Plaintiff separately admitted 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, Exhibit 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, 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 (Dkt. No. 48-18, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Exhibit 132 at pp. 7094-7097) and 

should therefore be disregarded as improper under Local Rule 56.1. 

42. 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶42. 

43. Dr. Ghanem called OIDE because, 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶43.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:6818
16

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

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

RESPONSE: Plaintiff’s SOF ¶44 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.”).) 

45. During the year that Dr. Calvente applied for tenure, the tenured faculty at the 

College recommended that she not receive tenure by a vote of 19–2. (Calvente Dep. 145:13–16.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶45. 

46. The UBPT conducted an independent review of Dr. Calvente’s file, which review 

included (i) a review of Dr. Calvente’s tenure dossier, (ii) a review of the recommendation of the 

College, (iii) an interview of Dr. Calvente, and (iv) an interview of the dean of the College. 

(Teboul Dep. 13:16–20:8, 34:16–20.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the steps taken by the UBPT in its review of 

Plaintiff tenure case as set forth in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶46, and do not dispute the UBPT 

review was “substantive”, though the term “independent” is not used in the Handbook. 

(See also Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶¶17, 114, 122-124, 126-28) (admitting the process undertaken 

in the UBPT review of her tenure case).) 

47. After reviewing Dr. Calvente’s file, the UBPT recommended that Dr. Calvente 

receive tenure by a vote of 4–3. (Answer at ¶28.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶47.

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:6819
17

report, 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶48, 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.) 

49. 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 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶49, but note that the 

second and third quoted sections reflect the findings made by 4-member UBPT majority, 

not the full 7-member UBPT. (Dkt. No. 48-34, Defendants’ SOF at Tab B, Exhibit 215 at p. 

23088.) 

50. 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶50, 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 UBPT Letter at 

p. 23088.) 

51. 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 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:6820
18

experienced faculty had evaluated her work. (Id.) She also wrote that she did not consider the 

UBPT’s 4–3 vote to outweigh the alleged significant concerns raised at the College level, which 

voted 2–19 against Dr. Calvente. (Id.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶51.

52. Dr. Ghanem is aware of Dr. Calvente complaining about discrimination. (72:2–

76:24; Calvente Dep. 271:22–272:14, 277:5–278:7.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶52.

53. is a white professor at DePaul with no record of complaining 

about discrimination and who was evaluated for tenure during the 2019/2020 academic year. 

(Ghanem Dep. 67:18–21; Diaz Dec. ¶7.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶53.

54. Before granting tenure to Dr. , the University was required to have 

reasonable doubt about Dr. ’s demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity to 

contribute to DePaul’s distinctive goals and academic mission. (Ghanem Dep. 44:4–45:18; First 

Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §§3.1, 3.3.1.3, 4.2 (Bates 

labeled Calvente–DePaul 000028, 31, 55).) 

RESPONSE: The cited evidence does not support the statement in Plaintiff’s SOF 

¶54 and should therefore be disregarded for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1. 

55. 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. ’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 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:6821
19

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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶55, 

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. 

56. 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. 

h’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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶56, 

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. 

57. 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 Plaintiff’s SOF ¶57.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:6822
20

58. Prior to overturning the UBPT’s recommendation that Dr. not receive 

tenure, Dr. Ghanem read the entire UBPT’s report, including the following sentences: “[t]he 

evaluations of his teaching by students are frequently below three on a five point scale and 

consistently below the departmental mean,” “[t]his case is not one of the occasional negative set 

of evaluations, but rather a pattern that shows itself in his capacity to communicate with a very 

large portion of his students,” “40 to 50 percent of the students rate his capacity to communicate 

subject matter content as not adequate,” “[m]oreover the pattern is persistent and the concern has 

not been relieved over time,” “[h]is recent evaluations, for example, the 2018 evaluations, 

contain such comments,” and “[i]n addition, 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. 102:19–105:15.) 

RESPONSE: Although immaterial, Defendants do not dispute that among the 

material she reviewed, Dr. Ghanem read the entire UBPT’s report which included the 

sentences quoted in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶58. 

59. 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.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants do not dispute the first sentence of Plaintiff’s SOF ¶59. 

Although immaterial, the second sentence of Plaintiff’s SOF ¶59misrepresents 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 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:6823
21

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.) 

60. 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 Plaintiff’s SOF 

¶60. 

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

record more closely matched the Department and College reports.3 (Id. at 013833) In 

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

Biochemistry stating she “strongly” recommended Dr. h 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. h has met the teaching criterial, exceeded the service criteria and objectively met the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:6824
22

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. The department’s 

guidelines 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; See also Dkt. No. 55-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab F, Ghanem Dep. at 54–55, 

106.) Specifically, Dr. Ghanem stated in her letter: 

scholarship criteria, I recommend favorable action on Dr. ’s candidacy to associate professor 

with tenure.”) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:6825
23

[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 report4 (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. ’s process to support her decision.” 

61. Dr. had never before been evaluated by the UBPT before the UBPT 

rejected his application by a vote of 6–1. (First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First 

Rinehart Declaration at §3.5.6.1 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000042–43).) 

RESPONSE: Although the cited evidence does not support the statements in 

Plaintiff’s SOF ¶61, and it is immaterial, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶61. 

62. is a white professor at DePaul with no record of complaining about 

discrimination. (Diaz Dec. ¶7; Ghanem Dep. 69:9–12.) 

RESPONSE: Although Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶62, this 

statement should be disregarded as immaterial because Plaintiff has waived any reliance on 

this statement of fact because she does not argue that Dr. is a comparator in her 

Brief in Support of her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and she specifically states 

“the parties did not explore Dr. ’s qualifications during discovery.” (Dkt. No. 87, 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment at p. 9); see also Ford v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 197 F.R.D. 365, 366 (N.D. Ill. 

2000) (noting that inclusion of immaterial facts is a “clear violation” of Local Rule 56.1). 

63. During the 2019/2020 academic year, the UBPT recommended that Dr. not 

receive tenure by a vote of 6–1. (Ghanem Dep. 67:22–69:11; Second Rinehart Declaration, copy 

attached as Exhibit I, and document Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 03806–87.) 

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

that Dr. ’s 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 #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:6826
24

RESPONSE: Although Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶63, this 

statement should be disregarded as immaterial because Plaintiff has waived any reliance on 

this statement of fact because she does not argue that Dr. is a comparator in her 

Brief in Support of her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and she specifically states 

“the parties did not explore Dr. ’s qualifications during discovery.” (Dkt. No. 87, 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment at p. 9); see also Ford, 197 F.R.D. at 366. 

64. Before granting tenure to Dr. , the university was required to 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; 

First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §§3.1, 3.3.1.3, 4.2 

(Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 000028, 31, 55).) 

RESPONSE: Although Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶64, this 

statement should be disregarded as immaterial because Plaintiff has waived any reliance on 

this statement of fact because she does not argue that Dr. is a comparator in her 

Brief in Support of her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and she specifically states 

“the parties did not explore Dr. ’s qualifications during discovery.” (Dkt. No. 87, 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment at p. 9); see also Ford, 197 F.R.D. at 366. 

65. Notwithstanding the UBPT’s recommendation, Dr. Ghanem granted tenure to Dr. 

. (Ghanem Dep. 68:11–69:8 and Exhibit 24 (Bates labeled Calvente–DePaul 38092–93).) 

RESPONSE: Although Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶65, this 

statement should be disregarded as immaterial because Plaintiff has waived any reliance on 

this statement of fact because she does not argue that Dr. is a comparator in her 

Brief in Support of her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and she specifically states 

“the parties did not explore Dr. ’s qualifications during discovery.” (Dkt. No. 87, 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment at p. 9); see also Ford, 197 F.R.D. at 366. 

66. Dr. Calvente’s case is the only case where Dr. Ghanem has rejected the UBPT 

recommendation that a candidate should receive tenure. (Ghanem Dep. 71:4–13.) In all other 

cases where Dr. Ghanem has rejected the UBPT’s recommendation, the candidate had been 

recommended not to receive tenure. (See id.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:6827
25

RESPONSE: Although immaterial because Plaintiff only argues Dr. ’s case 

and has waived the issue related to “all other cases where Dr. Ghanem has rejected the 

UBPT’s recommendation,” Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶66. 

67. Dr. applied for tenure the same year that Dr. Calvente applied for tenure. 

RESPONSE: Although Plaintiff’s SOF ¶67 contains no evidentiary citation, 

Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s SOF ¶67. 

68. Dr. actively attempted to avoid attaching her name to any complaints of 

discrimination until October 2018, when Dr. and Dr. Calvente met with Dr. Ghanem to 

complain about discrimination within the College. ( Dep. 64:8–70:2, 74:12, 89:6–94:5.) 

RESPONSE: Defendants dispute the statements in Plaintiff’s SOF ¶68. Plaintiff 

examined Dr. on a letter she submitted to OIDE in December 2017, with her name 

and signature on the letter, where Dr. d sought to “document” “areas of potential 

concern.” (Dkt. No. 54-1, Defendants’ SOF at Tab I, Dep. at 84-86; See also

attached herein as Tab 2, Ex. B to Dep.) 

69. Dr. never accused Dr. Ghanem of playing racial politics with Dr. 

’s career. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiff’s SOF ¶69 should be disregarded as improper under Local 

Rule 56.1 because it contains no evidentiary citation, is improper argument, vague, and 

unsupported by the record which contains no reference to the phrase “racial politics.” See 

De, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 714. Moreover, Plaintiff testified that it was Dr. who brought 

up Dr. o’s name during the meeting with Dr. Ghanem and that Dr. Ghanem cut 

her off. (Plaintiff’s RSOF at ¶82.) 

70. The Handbook does not allow Dr. Ghanem to reject the UBPT’s recommendation 

for alleged procedural violations. Rather, that power belongs solely to the University President. 

(First Rinehart Dec. ¶¶3, 6 and Exhibit 1 to the First Rinehart Declaration at §5.1.2.3 (Bates 

labeled Calvente–DePaul 000080–81).) 

RESPONSE: The first sentence of Plaintiff’s SOF ¶70 should be disregarded as 

improper under Local Rule 56.1 because it contains no evidentiary citation, is improper 

argument, vague, and unsupported by the record. Specifically, the Faculty Handbook 

allows the provost to overturn a UBPT recommendation “only in rare instances and for 

compelling reasons,” and Dr. Ghanem explained compelling reasons could include 

procedural grounds. (Dkt. No. 11, Answer at ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 50-2, Defendants’ SOF at Tab 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:6828
26

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.) Defendants further note that the second sentence of Plaintiff’s SOF 

¶70 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. 

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 

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 #: 97 Filed: 01/31/22 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:6829