Opinion ID: 219821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alexander’s Race Discrimination Claims

Text: Claims of race discrimination are evaluated under the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801–05 (1973). To proceed on his race-discrimination claim, Alexander must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that “‘(1) he . . . was a member of a protected class; (2) he . . . suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he . . . was qualified for the position; and (4) he . . . was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than similarly-situated, non-protected employees.’” Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 707 (6th Cir. 2006). If a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802–03. Once a defendant does so, the plaintiff must produce evidence showing that the proffered reason is pretextual. Id. at 804. Pretext may be demonstrated by showing by a preponderance of the evidence “(1) that the proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate [the action], or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate -7- No. 10-3358 Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, et al. [the action].” Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted). Alexander claims that he was discriminated against because of his race when he was: (1) replaced as BSSW Director; (2) given a low annual raise in 2006; (3) given a low 2007 special salary adjustment; and (4) given no annual raise in 2007. With respect to each of these claims, Alexander has failed to make out a prima facie case or has offered insufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons proffered by Defendants for these actions were pretexts for race discrimination.
Alexander was replaced as BSSW Director by an African-American female professor. He cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he was not “replaced by someone outside the protected class.” Wright, 455 F.3d at 707. Alexander argues that the dean replaced him with an African American in order to foil his lawsuit. But he presents no evidence to support this assertion, and we see no reason to depart from the McDonnell Douglas analysis.
Alexander’s 2006 raise was based on his 2005–06 annual evaluation, conducted by the dean. For College administrators, of which Alexander was one of three, the dean assigned weights of 50% for administrative work and a combined 50% for scholarship, teaching, and service. Nonadministrative faculty were evaluated only on the latter categories. Faculty received ratings ranging from “no merit” to “extra merit” in each category. Alexander was rated “merit” for scholarship, -8- No. 10-3358 Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, et al. teaching, and service and “partial merit” for administration. The percentage raise that resulted was the smallest in the College. Alexander has failed to make out a prima facie case with respect to the 2006 raise. He has not demonstrated that he was treated differently from similarly-situated faculty. The district court found that Alexander was similarly situated only to the other administrative faculty, and concluded that he failed to present evidence that he was evaluated differently than the other two professors in the College who served as administrators. Alexander’s small raise resulted primarily from his poor rating for administration, and Defendants offered various reasons—which we discuss below—that the dean was unhappy with Alexander’s performance as BSSW Director. Non-administrative faculty may be considered similarly situated to Alexander for the purposes of assessing his ratings for scholarship, teaching, and service, but he has also failed to show that he was treated differently from those faculty. Alexander argues that his scores in these categories should have been higher, pointing to a number of reasons he felt that the dean evaluated certain white faculty more favorably. But his assertions of differential treatment essentially amount to disagreement with the dean’s choice of criteria. For example, Alexander contends that the dean should not have relied on his below-average student evaluation scores in assessing his teaching, should have credited him for developing a new course even though he submitted no reading list or syllabus for the course as part of his dossier, and should have given him more service credit for serving on committees, even though such service was required of the BSSW Director. In sum, Alexander has not established that the evaluation criteria were applied differently to him than to non-African-American faculty. Moreover, he has not demonstrated that, even were he awarded the -9- No. 10-3358 Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, et al. additional credits he feels he deserved, his performance in scholarship, teaching, and service would entitle him to a rating higher than “merit.”
Alexander next alleges that he suffered discrimination when he received only a small special salary adjustment in 2007. Here, too, he fails to make out a prima facie case by showing that he was treated differently from similarly situated faculty. He has presented no evidence that the panel applied the evaluation criteria differently to him than to the other full professors with whom his scores were compared to determine his raise. Rather, he disagrees with the decision to award lower-ranking faculty higher percentage raises than senior faculty because the former’s salaries lagged further behind those at other institutions. Alexander also contends that he deserved the highest possible rating for scholarship, which no panel member gave him. But he has not demonstrated that other full professors received higher ratings for equally worthy scholarship. Finally, Alexander alleges that two panel members rated him poorly in order to allocate themselves a greater share of the pool reserved for full professors. This, however, cuts against his claim that the size of his raise was the product of racial discrimination.
Alexander submitted no dossier for the 2006–07 academic year. As a result, he received no raise. This was in accordance with the policy stated in the University’s Handbook. Alexander points out that his request for a late review by someone other than the dean was denied, contending that, in this respect, he was treated differently from another professor whose request for a different - 10 - No. 10-3358 Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, et al. evaluator was granted. But he has not demonstrated that the other professor was similarly situated to him, because he presented no evidence that she too failed to submit a dossier on time. Thus, Alexander cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to the 2007 raise.