[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13131

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MOHAMED A. SEIF, 

Ph.D., 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL & 

MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants,

CASSANDRA TARVER-ROSS, 

Director of Human Resources for Alabama 

A & M University, in her official and individual 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 1 of 15
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

capacities,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-02374-MHH

____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University (“Alabama 

A&M”) professor Mohamed Seif sued the university’s human resources director, Cassandra Tarver-Ross, under 42 U.S.C. section 

1983. Seif claims that Tarver-Ross denied him procedural due process by closing his internal grievance, which requested a salary increase.

Tarver-Ross appeals the district court’s denial of her summary judgment motion asserting qualified immunity. Because we 

conclude she is entitled to qualified immunity, we reverse and remand for the district court to enter summary judgment for TarverRoss on the procedural due process claim.

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 2 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Seif immigrated to the United States from Egypt. He joined 

Alabama A&M’s faculty in 2002 as an associate professor in its college of engineering. He became a tenured professor in 2006. 

A faculty handbook outlines Alabama A&M’s expectations 

for its faculty. But “it is not a contract.” Instead, the handbook “is 

a collection of polices and procedures that govern action uniquely 

pertaining to . . . faculty.” The handbook “caution[s]” that its policies “are subject to change . . . when the [u]niversity deems appropriate in its sole and exclusive discretion.” The handbook requires 

that faculty sign an acknowledgment stating that the handbook’s 

“policies and procedures are subject to change and do not constitute a contractual agreement.” 

The handbook identifies department chairpersons as being 

the “chief administrator[s]” of their respective departments. The 

chairs must “report[] to the [d]ean of his/her respective [s]chool” 

and “serve[] in [an] at-will position . . . at the pleasure of the [p]resident.” In 2007, soon after Seif obtained tenure, Alabama A&M appointed Seif to be the mechanical engineering department’s acting 

chair. When Seif became an acting chair, Alabama A&M paid Seif 

$14,400, through $1,200 monthly installments, on top of his base 

faculty salary. In 2008, the university made Seif the mechanical engineering department’s permanent chair and continued paying Seif 

the $14,400 of annual supplemental compensation. 

Soon after he became permanent chair, Seif wrote a memo 

to the interim provost and vice president of academic affairs, 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 3 of 15
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

claiming that the university miscalculated his base salary. Seif explained that the university based his salary on two years of employment at Alabama A&M, when it should have paid him based on 

five years. The interim provost disagreed and notified Seif that his 

salary would not be adjusted. The university did increase his base 

salary by five percent about a month later as part of a blanket increase for all chairs. 

In 2011, Alabama A&M merged its mechanical and civil engineering programs into one new department. Seif became the 

new department’s first chair and requested another increase of his 

base salary. Seif wrote a memo to the new provost and vice president for academic affairs, Daniel Wims, saying that he was the lowest paid chair despite other chairs being new hires and associate 

professors. Two of Seif’s colleagues wrote memos to Wims supporting Seif’s request. Wims denied the request, saying it wasn’t 

feasible to adjust salaries on a case-by-case basis at that time. 

Seif filed a “Faculty Grievance/Complaint Form” against 

Wims with Alabama A&M’s Department of Human Resources. 

Seif’s grievance alleged that Wims discriminated by denying Seif

equal pay relative to other department chairs. He requested “corrective action” of “[e]qual pay of $118,404.00.” 

A three-member faculty committee reviewed Seif’s grievance and deemed it “grievable” under Alabama A&M’s faculty 

handbook. Tarver-Ross, director of the Office of Human Resources, wrote Seif a letter notifying Seif that the committee found 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 4 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 5

that the “grievance [wa]s grievable” and explaining the grievance 

process’s next steps. 

Ten days later, Tarver-Ross wrote Seif a second letter saying 

that “[u]nfortunately, after further review,” Seif’s grievance was 

not grievable. Tarver-Ross cited the “Grievance Procedures, Eligibility” provision of the faculty handbook, which provides: 

Eligibility: Eligibility to participate in the grievance 

process is limited to [u]niversity faculty or those who 

were faculty when the situation arose. If a faculty 

member is employed by both a related foundation, an 

institute or an entity associated with Alabama A&M 

University for which Alabama A&M University serves 

as the fiscal agent . . . or an entity outside of the [u]niversity . . . for which the faculty member has a splitappointment, he/she is required first to follow the 

procedures as outlined by the other entity before beginning the grievance process at the University. Even 

then, the faculty member can only enter into the 

[u]niversity grievance process if the situation concerns the faculty portion of their appointment and 

then only to the extent and only for those issues related to the faculty assignment may be considered in 

this grievance process.

Tarver-Ross explained that because Seif’s grievance claimed other 

chairs had higher base salaries, his grievance related to his chair assignment—not his “faculty assignment.” The letter told Seif that 

his grievance was thus “considered closed.” 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 5 of 15
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

Seif then filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging Alabama A&M paid 

him less than other chairs based on his Egyptian national origin. 

The EEOC closed its file on Seif’s charge without finding any statutory violations by Alabama A&M. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After the EEOC closed its file, Seif filed this case against Alabama A&M’s board of trustees, Alabama A&M’s president, Wims, 

and Tarver-Ross. His complaint alleged race and national origin 

discrimination claims against the board, president, and Wims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981. The complaint also alleged a procedural due process claim against the president, Wims,

and Tarver-Ross under section 1983, alleging specifically Seif 

“maintained a property right in the grievance and grievance process.” 

The district court dismissed Seif’s claims to the extent he 

sued the individual defendants in their official capacities, which left 

only individual capacity claims. All defendants eventually moved 

for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Tarver-Ross, for 

her part, argued Seif had no constitutionally protected property interest in a grievance hearing. And she argued that even if Seif did, 

she was entitled to qualified immunity because Seif could not show 

that she violated clearly established law. Seif responded that our 

decision in Barnes v. Zaccari, 669 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2012), where 

we considered a university’s expulsion of a student without a 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 6 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 7

hearing as required by university policy, clearly established he was 

entitled to a grievance hearing. 

The district court denied the summary judgment motion as 

to Tarver-Ross but otherwise granted the motion. As relevant for 

this appeal, the district court first found that the faculty handbook 

assured Seif he would be able to grieve a salary-related complaint. 

Thus, the district court reasoned, Tarver-Ross deprived Seif of a 

property interest by closing his grievance without any hearing. 

The district court then found Tarver-Ross acted within her 

discretionary authority by closing Seif’s grievance, but it agreed 

with Seif that she violated clearly established law when she did. 

The district court disagreed with Seif that Barnes was a materially 

similar case to this one. But, the district court reasoned, Barnes “established the broad principle that a university, through its internal 

polices . . . [,] may not assure those subject to the internal policies 

that they will receive process in a particular situation, only to later 

reverse course when the interested party seeks access to the process.” 

This is Tarver-Ross’s appeal.1

1

Seif has not filed any appellate brief. We “must still determine as best [we] 

can the merits of the appeal and reverse only if [we] decide[] that the appeal is 

indeed meritorious.” Pasha v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 530, 535 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not require an appellee to file 

a brief).

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 7 of 15
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a district court’s denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment. English v. City of Gainesville, 75 F.4th 

1151, 1155 (11th Cir. 2023). We view all evidence “in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Townsend v. Jefferson County, 

601 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Crosby v. Monroe 

County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004)); see also Priester v. City 

of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 925 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e take 

the ‘facts’ in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and determine 

the legal issue of whether the plaintiff’s ‘facts’, if proven, show that 

the defendant violated clearly established law.”).

DISCUSSION

“Qualified immunity shields government employees from 

suit in their individual capacities for discretionary actions they perform while going about their duties.” Brooks v. Miller, 78 F.4th 

1267, 1279 (11th Cir. 2023). The immunity balances “the need to 

hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” 

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). So as long as the official “acted in an objectively reasonable manner,” the immunity will 

apply. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (“[Qualified immunity] provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or 

those who knowingly violate the law.”).

We apply a burden-shifting framework to determine if an 

official is entitled to qualified immunity. Brooks, 78 F.4th at 1280. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 8 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 9

The official asserting immunity must first “show that [she] was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority.” Id. If the official does that, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity doesn’t apply. Id. A plaintiff shows the immunity 

doesn’t apply by establishing (1) “the defendant violated a constitutional right” and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established.’” Davisv. 

Waller, 44 F.4th 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2019)). 

Tarver-Ross satisfied her initial burden of showing she acted 

within her discretionary authority by closing Seif’s grievance.2 Seif 

filed his grievance with the Office of Human Resources and TarverRoss was the office’s director. That means Seif must show immunity doesn’t apply here. See Brooks, 78 F.4th at 1280. 

A plaintiff shows a procedural due process violation by proving three elements: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process.” Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC, 34 F.4th 

1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 

1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003)). “Property,” in this context, “denotes 

a broad range of interests that are secured by existing rules or understandings.” Barnes, 669 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601 (1972)). Those interests “are not created 

2

In the district court, Seif did not dispute that Tarver-Ross satisfied her initial 

burden. Indeed, citing Tarver-Ross’s letter about closing his grievance, he argued that grievances “cannot be processed without the acts of Tarver-Ross.” 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 9 of 15
10 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

by the Constitution,” Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 

564, 577 (1972), and instead must stem from an “independent 

source” grounded in state law—such as a statute, contract, or “mutually explicit understanding,” Barnes, 669 F.3d at 1303 (citations 

omitted). 

We need not decide whether the district court correctly 

found that Seif’s facts, taken as true, actually establish all three elements of a procedural due process claim. In determining whether 

Seif satisfied his burden, “courts have discretion to decide which of 

the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). There are “cases in which 

a court [can] rather quickly and easily decide that there was no violation of clearly established law before turning to the more difficult question whether the relevant facts make out a constitutional 

question at all.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 239. And this is one of those 

cases. No clearly established law gave Tarver-Ross “fair warning” 

that Seif was entitled to grieve his salary dispute. Corbitt, 929 F.3d 

at 1312 (“[T]he ‘salient question’ is whether the state of the law 

gave the defendants ‘fair warning’ that their alleged conduct was 

unconstitutional.” (cleaned up) (quoting Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 

1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003))).

A plaintiff can show that the law clearly established a right 

in three ways. See Davis, 44 F.4th at 1312–13. First, a plaintiff can 

point to “a materially similar case” of the Supreme Court, this 

court, or the relevant state supreme court holding the challenged 

conduct is unlawful. Id. at 1312 (citation omitted). A materially 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 10 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 11

similar case does not have to be exactly on point, but it still “must 

have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (quoting Mullenix v. 

Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015)). 

Second, a plaintiff can point to a “broader, clearly established 

principle [that] should control the novel facts of a particular case.” 

Davis, 44 F.4th at 1312. Case law must establish the principle “with 

‘obvious clarity’ . . . so that ‘every objectively reasonable government official facing the circumstances would know that [her] conduct did violate federal law when [she] acted.’” Terrell v. Smith, 668 

F.3d 1244, 1256 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 

1340, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002)). “For example, if some authoritative 

judicial decision decides a case by determining that ‘X Conduct’ is 

unconstitutional without tying that determination to a particularized set of facts, the decision on ‘X Conduct’ can be read as having 

clearly established a constitutional principle.” Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 

1351. Or “put differently, the precise facts surrounding ‘X Conduct’ are immaterial to the violation.” Id.

Third, a plaintiff can show the defendant’s conduct “so obviously violates the Constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Davis, 44 F.4th at 1313 (cleaned up). 

Applying that three-part framework here, Seif failed to satisfy his burden. No materially similar case established Seif was entitled to grieve his salary dispute. That includes our decision in 

Barnes, which Seif cited in the district court. In Barnes, a university 

president created plans to build a new parking deck on campus. 669 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 11 of 15
12 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

F.3d at 1298–99. The president “‘administratively withdrew’ (expelled),” without any notice or hearing, a student who protested 

the project. Id. at 1298, 1300–01. After the student sued the president for denying due process, we held qualified immunity didn’t 

apply. Id. at 1309. We first concluded the student had “a property 

interest in his enrollment,” citing how university policies only allowed suspensions or expulsions for cause. Id. at 1303–06. We then 

concluded the university’s policies, themselves, clearly established 

the student’s right to continued enrollment because it “repeatedly 

assure[d] . . . students that they will receive due process before being suspended or expelled.” Id. at 1307; see also id. at 1304 (noting 

university policy “promise[d]” students they would not be disciplined without cause). 

As applied to this case, Barnes plainly does not “place[] 

the . . . constitutional question beyond debate.” White, 580 U.S. at 

79 (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12). The property right at stake in 

Barnes was a college student’s “interest in his enrollment.” 669 F.3d 

at 1305. Unlike Barnes, though, this case doesn’t involve a student’s 

right to enrollment or a university’s authority to expel students. 

This case is about whether a faculty member and department chair 

can grieve a salary dispute under faculty-specific policies. Seif’s 

complaint alleged that he maintained a property right in the denied 

grievance itself. Those differences mean Barnes is not “‘particularized’ to the facts of th[is] case.” White, 580 U.S. at 79 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)); see also Corbitt, 929 F.3d 

at 1311–12 (“[O]fficials are not obligated to be creative or imaginative in drawing analogies from previously decided cases . . . .” 

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 12 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 13

(quoting Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999, 1015 (11th Cir. 2011)). We 

are aware of no other binding case law that is particularized to the 

facts here. So we agree with the district court that no materially 

similar case established Seif was entitled to grieve his salary dispute. 

We part ways, however, with the district court’s analysis of

whether a “broader, clearly established principle” gave TarverRoss fair warning that Seif had a protected property interest. Davis,

44 F.4th at 1312. The district court found Barnes clearly established 

a broad principle that a university’s internal policies cannot promise any person (not just students) process and later reverse course 

when that person tries to use it. 

That principle stretches Barnes too broadly. Cf. Corbitt, 929 

F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he Supreme Court—with palpable frustration—

[has] reiterated ‘the longstanding principle that clearly established 

law should not be defined at a high level of generality.’” (quoting 

White, 580 U.S. at 79)). Barnes did not establish “obvious clarity” 

that university employees have a property interest in any and all 

internal dispute processes. Terrell, 668 F.3d at 1256 (quoting 

Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1351). Instead, we tied our decision in Barnes

“to [the] particularized facts” of that case. Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1351. 

The Barnes university’s internal policies “repeatedly assure[d] . . . 

students that they will receive due process before being suspended 

or expelled.” Barnes, 669 F.3d at 1307–08. We said nothing in 

Barnes about university policies as applied to nonstudents, much 

less anything about university policies governing internal employment dispute procedures.

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 13 of 15
14 Opinion of the Court 22-13131

Even if we held in Barnes “that ‘X Conduct’ is unconstitutional without tying that determination to a particularized set of 

facts,” Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1351, this case doesn’t involve X Conduct. The university policies in Barnes “made . . . assurances” that 

“students . . . w[ould] receive due process,” and then the university

broke its promise. 669 F.3d at 1307. There is no evidence of a broken promise here. The undisputed facts show Alabama A&M did 

not assure or “promise[]” Seif that he would be entitled to file a 

grievance. Id. at 1304; cf. id. at 1303 (property interests must stem 

from an independent source such as a contract or “mutually explicit understanding” (citations omitted)). The handbook expressly 

“caution[ed]” faculty members that its procedures were “subject to 

change . . . when the [u]niversity deems appropriate in its sole and 

exclusive discretion.” And it required that faculty acknowledge 

that the handbook was “not a contract” of any kind. So even if 

Seif’s salary dispute was grievable under the handbook when he 

first filed it, Alabama A&M retained discretion to deviate from its 

policy unlike the university in Barnes. 

That fact difference between this case and Barnes is not “immaterial.” Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1351. No Alabama case law, statute, 

or university regulation clearly entitled Seif to file a grievance without Alabama A&M “revers[ing] course” on its handbook. Barnes,

669 F.3d at 1307. Under Alabama law, an employee handbook is 

generally not a contract enforceable against one’s employer if it 

“contains express disclaimers reserving the [employer]’s right to 

deviate from all the policies stated in that handbook.” Stinson v. 

Am. Sterilizer Co., 570 So. 2d 618, 621–22 (Ala. 1990); see also

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 14 of 15
22-13131 Opinion of the Court 15

Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725, 734 (Ala. 2012). 

In Porter v. Hugine, for example, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

rejected an Alabama A&M employee’s claim “that he was entitled 

to a ‘grievance hearing’” under an older version of the faculty handbook because Alabama A&M reserved discretion to deviate from 

its handbook policies. 101 So. 3d 1228, 1237–38 (Ala. Civ. App. 

2012). Porter is not a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, to 

be sure, but “non-binding persuasive authority can . . . indicate that 

a particular constitutional right is not clearly established.” Corbitt, 

929 F.3d at 1319 n.14. Porter does that here.

That leaves the third method of clearly establishing the 

law—showing that the defendant’s conduct “so obviously violates 

the Constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Davis, 44 F.4th 

at 1313 (cleaned up). Seif did not show that closing a university 

employee’s internal grievance is “so egregious” such that it obviously violates the Constitution. Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, 

561 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009).

Because we cannot say Tarver-Ross acted in an objectively

unreasonable manner, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Malley, 475 U.S. at 341.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the part of the district court’s order denying 

qualified immunity, and we remand with instructions to enter 

judgment for Tarver-Ross on Seif’s procedural due process claim. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13131 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024 Page: 15 of 15