Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/290431606/Dr-Rajesh-Singh-sues-Emporia-State-University-ESU-Leaders-for-discrimination-retaliation-and-due-process-in-Kansas-federal-court
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 18:23:25
Document Index: 522686464

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Dr. Rajesh Singh sues Emporia State University (ESU) Leaders for discrimination, retaliation and due process in Kansas federal court | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Dr. Rajesh Singh sues Emporia State University (ESU) leaders for discrimination, retaliation and due process in Kansas federal court. Emporia State University will be joined to this lawsuit as a defendant after Dr. Singh receives the right to sue letter he requested from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. MICHAEL D. SHONROCK, PH.D., DAVID P. CORDLE, PH.D., GWEN ALEXANDER, PH.D., ANDREW J.M. SMITH, PH.D.
saveSave Dr. Rajesh Singh sues Emporia State University (ES... For Later
Case 2:15-cv-09369-JWL-TJJ
MICHAEL D. SHONROCK, PH.D., DAVID P. CORDLE, PH.D., GWEN ALEXANDER, PH.D., ANDREW J.M. SMITH, PH.D.
Plaintiff Rajesh Singh, Ph.D, through counsel Donald Peterson and Sean McGivern of
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson, LLC, states and alleges as follows for his cause of action
against Defendants Michael D. Shonrock, Ph.D., David P. Cordle, Ph.D., Gwen Alexander, Ph.D.,
and Andrew J.M. Smith, Ph.D., as follows:
1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the claims in this
lawsuit are brought under federal law.
2. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and omissions complained of
4. Plaintiff Rajesh Singh, Ph.D., is currently a resident of New York. His national
origin is East Indian, his race is Asian, and his skin color is brown. At all times relevant to the
Complaint, he was a resident of Emporia, Kansas and held the position of Assistant Professor in
the School of Library and Information Management (“SLIM” or “SLIM Department”) at Emporia
State University (“ESU”).
5. Emporia State University will be joined to this lawsuit as a defendant after Dr.
Singh receives the right to sue letter he requested from the Equal Employment Opportunity
6. ESU is a state-supported institution of higher learning, with Dr. Singh’s workplace,
and ESU’s main campus, located in Emporia, Kansas.
7. Defendant Gwen Alexander, Ph.D., is the Dean or the administrative head of the
SLIM department. She also served as Interim Provost for ESU during the 2012-2013 academic
year. She is Caucasian. The Dean of SLIM is the direct supervisor for SLIM faculty.
8. Defendant Andrew Smith, Ph.D., is the Interim Associate Dean for SLIM and
second in command to Dean Alexander.
He also served as Interim Dean for SLIM during the
2012-2013 academic year, thus directly supervising SLIM faculty during that time frame. He is
9. Defendant David Cordle, Ph.D., is the Provost of ESU, and presides over all
Defendant Michael D. Shonrock, Ph.D., is the former President of ESU. He is
Drs. Alexander, Smith, Cordle, and Shonrock are all sued in their individual
capacities for money damages.
12. Defendants sued in their individual capacities were residents of the State of Kansas
and employees of Emporia State University at the Emporia, Kansas, campus at all times relevant
to the Complaint. These individual Defendants were acting in the course and scope of their
employment when they took the actions set forth herein.
13. Emporia State University (“ESU”) hired Dr. Singh as an assistant professor with
the School of Library and Information Management (“SLIM” or “SLIM department”) on June 2,
14. On June 23, 2010, Dr. Singh met with Dean Alexander to discuss the possibility of
salary equity with Dr. Andrew Smith and Ms. Sheila O'Hare, who were two new hires for Fall
2010. They were no more qualified than Dr. Singh, yet they were hired for a 5% higher salary just
one year after Dr. Singh.
15. Despite it being a reasonable and polite request, Dean Alexander became enraged
and behaved in a confrontational and unreasonable manner during the meeting. She refused to
consider pursuing salary equity for Dr. Singh.
16. After this June 23, 2010 meeting, Dean Alexander began a campaign of character
assassination and marginalization against Dr. Singh.
17. Dean Alexander pitted other faculty against Dr. Singh by discussing the private
details of the June 23 2010 meeting with Dr. Smith, Ms. O'Hare and other faculty.
18. Dean Alexander maliciously, deliberately and repeatedly began marginalizing Dr.
Singh by removing him from committees, blocking opportunities through policy changes, and
otherwise abusing her power with the express purpose of damaging his work and reputation.
19. Dr. Singh pursued intervention by appealing to Provost as advised in the ESU
Policy Manual, but then-Provost Mehring did not provide any remedy.
20. In 2012 when President Shonrock appointed Dean Alexander as Interim Provost,
he also approved Dean Alexander's recommendation of Andrew Smith as Interim Dean for SLIM,
putting Dr. Smith in a position of power over Dr. Singh.
21. By this time, Dr. Singh had endured two year of discrimination and harassment that
interfered with his work and caused a great deal of stress.
22. On August 8, 2012, Dr. Singh met with President Shonrock to discuss his concerns
about Andrew Smith's new role and SLIM's dysfunctional and discriminatory management
23. Dr. Shonrock immediately shut down the conversation by saying that he approved
Dr. Smith's appointment, and supported Dean Alexander's recommendation. He similarly shut
down any further conversation about the discrimination Dr. Singh was experiencing.
24. Dr. Shonrock was not open to hearing anything that Dr. Singh had to say about his
experiences in SLIM, so Dr. Singh spoke to him about their mutual interest in management theories
25. Pursuant to ESU policy and course of conduct, Dr. Singh received an evaluation at
the end of every calendar year for his work. The initial evaluation is conducted by a committee of
his peers—the Faculty Promotion Committee (FPC).
26. The FPC makes a recommendation regarding whether ESU should renew Dr.
Singh’s appointment. Dean Alexander then decides whether to adopt or disagree with the FPC’s
27. Defendant Cordle decides whether to affirm or reverse Dean Alexander’s decision.
28. Pursuant to SLIM’s “Policies and Procedures for Faculty Recognition” (“SLIM
FR” or “SLIM T&P”) and ESU’s Policy Manual, assistant professors are evaluated based on three
criteria: teaching, research (also known as scholarship), and service. Neither the SLIM FR nor
ESU’s Policy Manual authorize review on any criteria outside of the three areas of teaching,
29. During Dr. Singh’s first full three years at ESU—2010, 2011, and 2012—he
received outstanding reviews. He was one of the highest rated teachers in the department and was
30. Despite the stellar evaluations, the FPC included an inappropriate section on
"collegiality,” called “Additional Comments,” in each evaluation letter, and Dean Alexander
included similar statements endorsing the FPC’s “collegiality” comments in her evaluations.
31. These inappropriate "collegiality" comments were included in a malicious intent to
build a case for terminating Dr. Singh.
32. Despite Dr. Singh's requests to remove this section each year it was included, the
FPC never responded or acted to remove it.
inappropriate "collegiality" sections.
34. Most of Dr. Singh's responses protesting these "collegiality" sections were not
forwarded to the Provost by Dean Alexander and Dr. Smith as they should have been according to
SLIM policy. They do not exist in Dr. Singh's personnel file.
35. In December 2011, Dr. Singh was evaluated by the FPC. The FPC found that Dr.
Singh was an excellent teacher, stating that he “continues to receive good teaching evaluations
The FPC further found that Dr. Singh “demonstrates strength in research” and
concluded that his service was adequate.
36. In March 2012, Dean Alexander agreed with the FPC’s assessment and commended
Dr. Singh for his “teaching, service, and scholarship for 2011.”
37. In December 2012, Dr. Singh was again evaluated by the FPC. Again, Dr. Singh
received excellent teaching scores from his students and the FPC commended him for his work in
changing “classes in an effort to improve as a teacher.”
The FPC also found that Dr. Singh
continued to demonstrate “strength in research” and praised his service on SLIM committees.
38. In March 2013, Interim SLIM Dean Andrew Smith adopted the FPC’s finding and
praised Dr. Singh for his teaching, research, and service.
39. As stated earlier, each of the evaluations contained a section on “collegiality”
entitled “Additional Comments” that Dr. Singh protested in writing.
40. In October 2013, Dean Alexander and Dr. Singh had dinner together at a
conference. Before the dinner, Dean Alexander told Dr. Singh that he had everything he needed
to achieve tenure. On previous occasions, Dean Alexander had praised Dr. Singh and encouraged
him to apply for early tenure.
41. One month later, in November 2013, the FPC arbitrarily determined that Dr. Singh
should be fired in order to prevent him from obtaining tenure. Dr. Singh would have been required
to apply for tenure beginning in the 2014-2015 academic year.
42. Dr. Singh received nearly identical high objective teaching scores from students in
2013 that he received in 2012, 2011, and 2010. Despite the high objective teaching scores the FPC
subjectively and arbitrarily chastised Dr. Singh for engaging in too much group work and accused
Dr. Singh of both (1) “failing to make course changes in response to student comments” and (2)
making changes to a course because he allegedly “did not discuss these changes with the SLIM
Ironically, in 2012, the FPC praised Dr. Singh for the exact same action—making
changes to his classes.
43. In 2012, the FPC commended Dr. Singh for his research and Interim Dean Smith
encouraged him to continue to publish in peer reviewed journals. In 2013, Dr. Singh published
two articles in peer reviewed journals.
But the FPC’s 2013 review concludes that Dr. Singh’s
“research was not progressing on an appropriate path” and provides no explanation in support of
its conclusion. The 2013 review is vast departure from the 2012 review and lacks a factual basis.
44. In 2012, Dr. Singh published one non-refereed publication in a respected Canadian
journal aimed at library and information professionals. Both the FPC and Dean Smith concluded
in 2012 that Dr. Singh showed strength in research. In 2013, Dr. Singh published two publications
in peer reviewed journals. Despite outperforming his earlier excellent work, the FPC concluded
that Dr. Singh’s research was failing.
45. In January of 2013, Dr. Smith and Dr. Alexander (then Interim Provost and Interim
Dean, respectively), met with Dr. Singh to discuss his annual evaluation and behaved in a very
threatening and confrontational manner, specifically bringing up Dr. Singh’s cultural background
46. Each of Dr. Singh’s evaluations, beginning in 2011 and continuing through 2013,
contained a “collegiality” section. In each section, the FPC complained that Dr. Singh was quiet
during meetings and insinuated that he didn’t get along with his colleagues.
47. Not once does the FPC identify a single action or comment from Dr. Singh that was
unprofessional or not collegial. Dr. Singh was at all times collegial and professional.
48. The FPC’s use of collegiality as a review criterion is impermissible under both the
SLIM FR and ESU’s Policy Manual.
49. The American Association of University Professors (“AAUP”) warns that that the
use of “collegiality” as a distinct evaluation criterion for professors is fraught with dangers. The
AAUP states: “collegiality has not infrequently been associated with ensuring homogeneity, and
hence with practices that exclude persons on the basis of their difference from a perceived norm.”
50. ESU specifically endorses the AAUP organization in the ESU Policy Manual, and
ESU has three designated faculty AAUP representatives.
51. The FPC uses collegiality as a pretext for discrimination. When the FPC alleges Dr.
Singh is not collegial they are criticizing him for not being white.
52. SLIM treated Dr. Andrew Smith, a white professor and also a foreign national,
more favorably than Dr. Singh. Dr. Smith was hired a year after Dr. Singh at a higher salary and
was given 2 years credit toward tenure despite the fact that Dr. Smith did not have the tenure-track
experience required by the ESU Policy Manual for this credit, nor did he have master’s degree in
53. Dr. Smith also was hired a year after Dr. Singh for a 5% higher salary, and had a
higher salary the entire duration of Dr. Singh’s employment.
54. At times, Dr. Smith’s total salary (base salary plus other earnings) was as much as
30% higher than Dr. Singh’s.
55. Based on information and belief, Dr. Singh’s teaching scores are higher than Dr.
Smith’s teaching scores.
56. Dr. Singh’s publication and research history exceeds Dr. Smith’s publication
For example, Dr. Singh has more than three times the number of peer reviewed
publications as Dr. Smith.
57. In the fall semester of 2012, ESU engaged in a sham nationwide search for an
assistant professor position expressly for the purpose of “rehiring” Andrew Smith in order to
provide him with a more favorable immigration status.
58. Dr. Smith’s PERM (“Green Card”) application with Alien Selection Date of
06/04/2013 listed far fewer and simpler “Job Duties” and “Specific Skills and Requirements” than
Dr. Singh’s PERM application and other comparable PERM applications submitted for ESU
59. Despite possessing inferior teaching scores and an inferior publication history, ESU
promoted Dr. Smith to Interim Dean of SLIM while Dr. Alexander served as Interim Provost in
2012-2013, making him Dr. Singh’s administrative superior. During that same year, Interim
Provost Alexander granted Dr. Smith early tenure and promotion to associate
60. Based on information and belief, Dr. Smith had not completed a master’s degree in
library science, nor had he published a single peer reviewed journal article in a library science
journal when he was approved for early tenure and promotion by Interim Provost Gwen Alexander
after only 3 years at ESU.
61. In the fall semester of 2013, Dean Alexander created a new Associate Dean position
expressly for Dr. Smith, and made it an “Interim” Associate Dean position to avoid the necessity
for a national search.
62. Dr. Smith was a member of the 2013 FPC who recommended terminating Dr.
Singh’s employment. At the time, he was also Interim Associate Dean of SLIM, and was therefore
ineligible to be on the FPC according to SLIM policy.
63. Dr. Alexander approved and adopted the FPC report and its recommendations.
64. As a result of the negative review provided by FPC, Dr. Singh received a “terminal
appointment” with ESU.
He was expected to serve as a professor for ESU for the 2014-2015
academic year. At the end of the 2014-2015 academic year (May 2015), Dr. Singh’s employment
65. On December 16, 2013, Dr. Singh wrote a comprehensive point-by-point rebuttal
to the FPC’s recommendation for termination, as he was allowed to do according to SLIM policy.
66. On January 10, 2014, Dr. Singh met with Dean Alexander to discuss the FPC’s
evaluation. Dean Alexander was negative and confrontational, repeatedly called Dr. Singh a
“misfit” and asking him why he didn’t just find a position elsewhere. She was not open to hearing
any of Dr. Singh’s concerns about his unfair FPC evaluation, and instead complained about how
his rebuttal was “unnecessary” and “too long.”
67. On January 31, 2014. Dean Alexander sent a curt letter endorsing the FPC’s
recommendation for termination. She did not send a copy of Dr. Singh’s rebuttal to the Provost as
required by SLIM Policy.
68. Dr. Singh tried to resolve the situation through an Ombudsperson as suggested in
the ESU Policy Manual.
69. On January 31, 2014, Ombudsperson Dr. Michael Morales met with Provost Cordle
and gave him Dr. Singh’s documentation, and the Provost expressed sympathy for Dr. Singh’s
situation and stated that there appeared to be “explicit bias” against Dr. Singh.
70. Provost Cordle further stated he would investigate both SLIM’s general practices
and Dr. Singh’s specific situation.
71. On February 28, 2014, Provost Cordle sent a letter that commended Dr. Singh’s
teaching and research, but reframed “service” as “collegiality” to justify Dr. Singh’s termination
based upon that criterion.
72. At the beginning of March 2014, Ombudsperson Michael Morales met with Provost
Cordle again to find out how Dr. Cordle had come to the conclusion to uphold the termination,
and Dr. Cordle stated that he “had no time” to investigate nor read Dr. Singh’s documentation.
73. Based on information and belief, Provost Cordle changed his stance because he was
told by President Shonrock to cease the investigation and support Dean Alexander.
74. On March 28, 2014, Dr. Singh filed a grievance to appeal the termination decision.
75. On February 11, 2014, Dr. Singh sent Dean Alexander an email requesting to teach
two summer courses.
76. Dean Alexander denied the request.
Dean Alexander maliciously blocked Dr.
Singh from teaching the courses by selecting three lesser-qualified white individuals to teach the
77. Dr. Singh was forced to forego the additional income of up to $10,000 he would
have received to teach those classes.
78. The individuals chosen to teach the courses were not tenure track faculty members
in the SLIM department. One was a relatively new instructor in SLIM, while the other two were
adjuncts hired expressly to teach these courses.
79. On April 1, 2014, Dr. Singh received a letter from Dean Alexander setting out his
teaching assignments for the Fall 2014 semester.
80. On April 2, 2014, Dr. Singh filed an internal EEO complaint with ESU’s human
81. Approximately one week later, on April 10, 2014, Dr. Singh filed his initial Charge
of Discrimination with the KHRC.
82. Less than two months later, on June 5, 2014 and without any warning, Dean
Alexander and Dr. Smith stripped Dr. Singh of all his previously assigned Fall 2014 teaching
assignments and changed the lock on his office, seizing all of the contents of his office, including
all of his personal items.
83. Dr. Andrew Smith moved into Dr. Singh’s office shortly afterwards.
84. On information and belief, Dr. Singh is the first professor in the history of ESU to
be prohibited from teaching classes and having an office on campus during the terminal year of a
85. The ESU Policy Manual specifies that suspension of a faculty member during a
grievance proceeding is justified only if “immediate harm to the faculty member or others is
threatened by continuance of service.”
86. Dr. Singh appealed the FPC’s termination decision pursuant to ESU’s Grievance
87. Under the policy, ESU has historically provided professors with a hearing.
88. Dr. Singh did not receive a hearing. He was only allowed to submit documents in
support of his position, and his grievance committee members never met him
89. To ensure an unfair process, Dean Alexander provided the Grievance Committee
with backdated derogatory notes about Dr. Singh’s performance, character, and personality.
90. The notes provided to the Grievance Committee, entitled “Situation at a Glance,”
were not in Dr. Singh’s personnel file when he had reviewed his file in April and May of 2014.
91. In her “Situation at a Glance” documents, Dr. Alexander attacked Dr. Singh’s
character, personality, and cultural heritage, as well as making numerous inappropriate and
misleading insinuations throughout.
documentation and made a decision against Dr. Singh on Nov 3, 2014 without a hearing and
without giving him the opportunity to view and respond to the responding parties’ documentation.
93. Upon Dr. Singh’s protest, the Grievance Committee gave Dr. Singh an opportunity
to respond to the opposite party’s evidence, but by then their decision had already been made.
94. The Grievance Committee failed to follow ESU policy, and unfairly denied Dr.
Singh the due process of a hearing.
95. Based on information and belief, the Grievance Committee was encouraged by
President Shonrock, either directly or indirectly through Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Michael
Morales, to avoid a hearing for Dr. Singh’s grievance and find in favor of the administration.
96. Dr. Singh received notice that his appeal was officially denied and he was officially
terminated on January 9, 2015.
97. Dr. Shonrock personally reviewed, approved, and ratified the termination of Dr.
Singh’s employment.
98. When he did so, Dr. Shonrock knew or should have known that Dr. Singh had a
constitutionally protected property interest in his appointment, in his annual evaluations, in a fair
tenure review process, and in continued employment.
99. Dr. Singh objected to the arbitrary, illegal, and unfair conduct multiple times with
Drs. Smith and Alexander, in addition to reporting it to Dr. Cordle, Dr. Shonrock, and former
Provost Mehring. However, none of the individual defendants or Provost Mehring did anything
to stop the obvious discrimination and retaliation.
Dr. Cordle said he did not have time to investigate any of Dr. Singh’s concerns.
The individual defendants caused the illegal actions that are complained about in
Dr. Singh was not an at-will employee of ESU.
103. He should have received an administrative hearing but he never did. Dr. Singh was
not afforded the right to be heard and to cross examine the witnesses against him.
104. Since at least 2009, not a single person of color has received tenure in SLIM.
105. SLIM hires people of color solely to present a façade of diversity.
106. SLIM terminates professors of color as they get closer to obtaining tenure.
107. Exhibit “A” is a visual demonstration of faculty turnover at the SLIM department
under Dean Alexander. Dr. Singh prepared this document for the appeal process.
108. SLIM professors of color are given more difficult teaching assignments and are
allowed little or no input on their teaching assignments.
109. From fall 2009 to spring 2014, SLIM professors of color were not allowed to serve
on faculty search committees, and were explicitly excluded from social gatherings with faculty
110. SLIM makes program decisions based on a desire to avoid foreign student
111. A SLIM staff member openly celebrated Hitler’s birthday for years.
112. SLIM wanted to impose additional requirements to admit non-English speaking
113. Dr. Alexander told people Dr. Singh cannot drive because “people from India have
problems judging space and distance.”
114. On information and belief, alterations may have been made to the student comments
on Plaintiff Singh’s summer 2013 course evaluation. Plaintiff Singh filed a Kansas Open Records
Act request to obtain the underlying, original data supporting the 2013 course evaluations. ESU
refused to provide the information to Plaintiff Singh, who will obtain that information through
115. Dean Alexander seized Dr. Singh’s personal belongings and data in June 2014 and
refused to return Dr. Singh’s personal belongings and data for over 10 months, negatively
impacting his scholarly productivity.
116. Dr. Singh’s white colleagues were not locked out of their offices and had the
opportunity to retrieve their data themselves either alone at their leisure or in the presence of a HR
staff member, unlike Dr. Singh.
117. On information and belief, ESU or SLIM failed to preserve the data on Dr. Singh’s
desktop computer that was seized from his office, despite being under a litigation hold.
118. The IT Department retrieved his data using FTK software, which is forensic
software designed to retrieve data after it has been deleted.
119. Starting in June of 2010, Dean Alexander engaged in a campaign of character
assassination and harassment in an attempt to marginalize Dr. Singh.
120. Dr. Andrew Smith joined in that harassment as soon as he was in a position of
power over Dr. Singh.
121. Dr. Singh endured 5 years of a hostile work environment and workplace mobbing,
negatively impacting his professional life and personal well-being.
122. Dr.
Alexander, Dr. Smith and other faculty encouraged into workplace mobbing behavior.
123. Dean Alexander and Dr. Smith repeatedly questioned Dr. Singh socializing with
ESU colleagues across campus.
124. Dean Alexander publicly humiliated Dr. Singh on multiple occasions, including
forcing him to leave an open meeting to which he was invited by colleagues,
125. Dean
Immigration Services (USCIS) H1 B visa requirements by changing Dr. Singh’s work conditions
via stripping of his teaching assignments and removing him from his office.
126. Dr. Singh’s enforced isolation from his office, the SLIM Department, and SLIM
students was humiliating and damaging to his reputation, and was wholly unreasonable and
127. Dr. Singh overwhelmingly met the requirements for teaching, research, and service
according to SLIM’s FR.
128. ESU ignored Dr. Singh’s qualifications, his teaching scores, his publication history,
and his service to the University and the profession when deciding to terminate him.
129. On the other hand, ESU made exception after exception for promoting Dr. Smith,
despite Dr. Smith’s inferior qualifications, teaching scores and publication history. Dr. Smith was
paid at a higher salary than Dr. Singh during each year of Dr. Singh’s employment.
130. ESU’s and SLIM's termination decision of Dr. Singh's employment was illegal.
131. Dr. Singh was subjected to extreme hostility resulting in his wrongful termination,
unprecedented removal from office and denial of due process of a hearing, all with the full
endorsement of Provost Cordle and President Shonrock.
132. ESU and SLIM’s unlawful termination has affected Dr. Singh’s professional career
negatively, delaying tenure and causing him physical and mental stress as well as financial
Count I—Individual Capacity 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim Against Defendants Alexander, Smith, Cordle, and Shonrock for Discrimination and Retaliation
133. Defendants Alexander, Smith, Cordle and Shonrock discriminated against Plaintiff
Singh on the basis of his race and color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
134. Defendants Alexander, Smith, Cordle and Shonrock discriminated against Plaintiff
Singh on the basis of his race, color, and national origin in violation of the Equal Protection Clause
135. Defendants Alexander, Smith, Cordle and Shonrock retaliated against Plaintiff
Singh for engaging in activities protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
136. Defendants Alexander, Smith, Cordle and Shonrock acted under color of state law
when they violated Plaintiff Singh’s rights.
137. Plaintiff Singh has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendants Alexander,
Smith, Cordle and Shonrock.
138. Plaintiff Singh is entitled to pursue relief against Defendants Alexander, Smith, and
Cordle under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rajesh Singh, Ph.D., prays that judgment be entered against
Defendants Gwen Alexander, Ph.D., Andrew J.M. Smith, Ph.D., David P. Cordle, Ph.D. and
Michael D. Shonrock, Ph.D., for an amount in excess of $75,000.00, for all remedies allowed by
law including an award of attorneys fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as the
Count II—Individual Capacity 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim Against Defendants Alexander, Smith, Cordle, and Shonrock for Due Process Violations
139. Plaintiff Singh had a property interest in his appointment, in his annual evaluations,
in a fair tenure review process, and in continued employment.
140. Defendants Shonrock, Cordle, Alexander, and Smith violated Plaintiff Singh’s
rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
141. Defendants Shonrock, Cordle, Alexander, and Smith violated Plaintiff Singh’s
rights under color of state law.
142. Plaintiff Singh has been damaged by Defendants Shonrock, Cordle, Alexander, and
Smith’s illegal conduct.
143. Plaintiff Singh is entitled to pursue relief against Defendants Shonrock, Cordle,
Alexander, and Smith under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendant Michael D. Shonrock, Ph.D., Gwen Alexander, Ph.D., Andrew J.M. Smith, Ph.D ,and
David P. Cordle, Ph.D. for an amount in excess of $75,000.00, for all remedies allowed by law
including an award of attorneys fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as the Court
144. Non-party ESU will be joined to this case as a Defendant for violating Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after Plaintiff Singh receives his right to sue letter from EEOC.
Plaintiff Singh expects to receive that letter in the next 30 days.
Plaintiff Rajesh Singh, Ph.D., hereby demands trial by jury.
Plaintiff Rajesh Singh, Ph.D., designates Kansas City, Kansas as the place of trial.
WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON, LLC O.W. Garvey Building 200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010 Wichita, KS 67202
316.267.1562
316.303.1018
/s Sean McGivern
Donald N. Peterson, II, #13805 Sean M. McGivern, #22932 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Figure 1: SLIM Faculty Turnover
Documents Similar To Dr. Rajesh Singh sues Emporia State University (ESU) Leaders for discrimination, retaliation and due process in Kansas federal court
43 Fair empl.prac.cas. 697, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,024 Stanley A. Rabzak v. County of Berks, 815 F.2d 17, 3rd Cir. (1987)
sarah fadel - research paper