Opinion ID: 3150045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CCNY’s Employment Decisions

Text: The end of the 2008‐2009 school year marked the beginning of an uncertain time for Chen. Because her position as Interim Director of the Asian Studies program was a one‐year appointment, she would learn over the summer whether she would be offered a second term on the job. Similarly, although 3 As an example of other complaints that Calichman received about Chen, Defendants‐ Appellees submitted an email from Reynolds to Calichman in which Reynolds wrote that “Chen needs to torque‐down a bit[,]” in connection with her role as Interim Director of the Asian Studies program, and that “[s]he hasn’t been appointed to the federal bench.” J.A. 207. Reynolds expressed concern that Chen was “going to wear out Geraldine [Murphy], who’s pretty patient.” J.A. 207. 13 Chen had already been reappointed as an assistant professor for the 2009‐2010 school year, the Executive Committee of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures was scheduled to reconvene in fall 2009 to determine whether to offer employment to its assistant professors for the 2010‐2011 academic year. On July 7, 2009 — a little more than a month after Calichman’s evaluation — CCNY’s then‐President, Gregory H. Williams, wrote Chen to thank her for her “service . . . as Interim Director of Asian Studies” and to inform her that, “[f]or the coming academic year, a time when long‐range strategic planning and hiring will be necessary, I have asked Professor Calichman to take direct charge of the program.” J.A. 209. According to Reynolds, both he and Calichman advised against reappointing Chen to another term as Interim Director, but CCNY’s President had ultimate authority over the decision. Following this decision, but before the Executive Committee convened to consider assistant professorships, Chen filed a complaint with CCNY’s Office of Affirmative Action (the “Affirmative Action Complaint”) and composed several memoranda rebutting Calichman’s evaluation and his assessment of the May 20 meeting. In the Affirmative Action Complaint — which she filed on August 25, 2009 — Chen claimed that Lesen committed “racial/linguistic discrimination” by 14 “ask[ing] [Chen] to read the word, ‘stop,’ after her for 6‐8 times in a racially and linguistically discriminatory tone.” J.A. 213. Chen also averred that Calichman and Murphy denied her “equal treatment in employment” because she was a “non‐white, junior and foreign woman,” and retaliated against her because she complained about the Student. J.A. 211. According to the Complaint, Calichman and Murphy should have referred her to the Affirmative Action office, not Lesen, because the Student had sexually harassed her and Lesen is not qualified to handle such harassment. Chen also stated that Calichman and Murphy negatively affected her career by criticizing how she handled the situation. Chen’s memoranda rebutting Calichman’s evaluation and his assessment of the May 20 meeting reiterated these allegations, highlighted instances of Chen’s collegiality, and defended her conduct vis‐à‐vis the Student. In Chen’s view, Lesen told her to confront the Student right away and later contradicted herself by criticizing Chen’s actions. The Student, Chen claims, “should have thanked” her for presenting him with written rules of behavior. J.A. 436. On October 15, 2009, the Executive Committee of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures convened to determine whether to reappoint assistant professors in the Department for the 2010‐2011 school year. The group 15 consisted of five voting members. Calichman was among the voting members, and he advocated against Chen’s reappointment. Ultimately, the Executive Committee sided with Calichman, with three votes against reappointment and two abstentions. The Committee informed Chen of its decision in a letter on October 20, 2009.4 Several days later, the Affirmative Action Office informed Chen that it had investigated her Complaint and determined that the Student had not sexually harassed her or “threaten[ed] her with any type of violence” and that her evaluation was consistent with the prior year and “gave a fair and accurate representation of her performance, including her triumphs and shortcomings.” J.A. 220‐21. The Affirmative Action Office found no wrongdoing. Once informed of the Executive Committee’s decision that she would not be reappointed for the 2010‐2011 school year, Chen filed an appeal with the Humanities Division’s Personnel and Budgetary Committee. Chen submitted documents on her behalf — including letters of support from faculty members — and Calichman testified against Chen’s candidacy. The chair of the Committee recalled receiving this information, as well as having direct discussions with 4 The Executive Committee reappointed the seven other assistant professors that it discussed at the October 15 meeting. Two of those assistant professors — Carlos Riobo and Vanessa Valdes — started at the same time as Chen. 16 Chen. J.A. 572. The Personnel and Budgetary Committee denied Chen’s appeal on November 3, 2009, by a vote of six against and one abstention. Chen then pressed her appeal before a CCNY Review Committee, which voted unanimously against her reappointment. When asked if he could remember anything about the decision, the chair of the Review Committee noted that it “had to do with her . . . inappropriate conduct, erratic behavior.” J.A. 580. Finally, Chen sought relief from CCNY’s President, Robert Paaswell. Paaswell reviewed the documents Chen submitted, spoke with Calichman, Lesen, and Murphy, and decided to deny Chen’s appeal. In a letter to Chen, Paaswell “recognize[d] that [Chen’s] teaching ha[d] been positively evaluated by [her] peers and [her] students,” that her work as a scholar had been “commendable,” and that she had “provided valuable service to the College.” J.A. 169. He concluded, however, that Chen’s “conduct in connection with an incident that occurred during the Spring 2009 semester with a student displayed seriously poor judgment,” and that her subsequent memos about the situation “demonstrate[d] that [she] failed to recognize the inappropriateness of [her] conduct.” J.A. 169. In Paaswell’s judgment, this conduct demonstrated Chen’s failure “to satisfy the mandate of [Bylaw] Section 11.7.B.2,” which requires 17 assistant professors to demonstrate “satisfactory qualities of personality and character.” J.A. 170.