Emeldi v. University of Oregon Brings the Student-Professor Relationship into the Workplace

Abstract: On June 9, 2012, in Emeldi v. University of Oregon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment to the publicly-funded University of Oregon in a Title IX suit brought by a female Ph.D. student claiming retaliation following her complaints of gender discrimination. By applying the Title VII framework used for employment discrimination cases, the court analogized the graduate student's relationship to that of an employee and found that the student's allegations alone were sufficient to create a factual dispute. Because the Title VII framework frequently allows these types of allegations to survive summary judgment, a student's allegations are more likely to be found non-speculative under the Ninth Circuit's application of the Title VII framework to Title IX cases. This may result in more Title IX discrimination cases surpassing the summary judgment stage, thereby empowering students to speak out against discrimination.IntroductionAfter effectively withdrawing from the University of Oregon's College of Education as a result of being unable to procure a replacement dissertation advisor, Monica Emeldi, a female Ph.D. student in the College of Education's Department of Special Education (Department), sued the institution.1 She alleged that her male faculty dissertation committee chair engaged in gender discrimination before resigning from supervising her dissertation.2 She also asserted that the University of Oregon (University) prevented her from completing her Ph.D. program in retaliation for having complained of gender-based institutional bias in her program.3Emeldi claimed that the University retaliated against her in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars gender-based discrimination by federally funded institutions.4 Because no framework exists for deciding what a plaintiffmust prove to prevail on a motion for summary judgment for a Title IX retaliation claim, circuit courts have applied the same framework used to decide retaliation claims under Title VII, which prevents gender discrimination in the workplace.5 In a Title VII claim, a plaintiffwho is unable to produce direct evidence of retaliation must make "a prima facie case of retaliation by showing (a) that he or she was engaged in a protected activity, (b) that he or she suffered an adverse action, and (c) that there was a causal link between the two."6 Following the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action.7 If the defendant is able to do so, the plaintiffmust then demonstrate that the reason is pretextual by either showing that the discriminatory reason likely motivated the employer's actions or that the employer's non-retaliatory reason lacks credence. 8The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment for the University concluding that Emeldi's complaints of gender discrimination and institutional bias were nothing more than speculation.9 Emeldi appealed the decision, arguing that she had provided sufficient allegations to establish that there was a genuine issue of fact.10 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision holding that Emeldi had provided sufficient evidence to create a factual issue as to whether there was a causal link between Emeldi's protected activity and adverse action.11 The Ninth Circuit also held that there was sufficient evidence to create a factual issue as to whether the resignation of her supervisor and her inability to secure replacement was pretext for retaliation.12In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit focused on Title VII standards, analogizing Emeldi's claims to those of employees making prima facie cases under Title VII claims, and relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.13 Because the degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case for Title VII claims on summary judgment is minimal, the court was able to find a causal link and factual issue of pretext based only on Emeldi's allegations of discrimination, including inconsistent comments from Emeldi herself. …