Opinion ID: 219821
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal as BSSW Director

Text: Alexander alleges that he was removed as BSSW Director in retaliation for requesting salary information that might reveal sex discrimination. We assume without deciding that this request constituted protected activity. See Niswander, 529 F.3d at 719–20, 725 (stating that Title VII’s opposition clause protects an employee’s “reasonable” opposition to unlawful discrimination). Defendants give various reasons for Alexander’s removal from the position, citing his lack of progress in developing an undergraduate honors program, a social justice minor, and new courses, tasks that Alexander acknowledges were priorities for the dean. Alexander argues that these reasons were pretextual and challenges the Dean’s judgment that he was an ineffective administrator. He contends that he missed no required deadlines and was given no written warning of performance problems. He also argues that the dean gave “shifting reasons” for Alexander’s dismissal—further evidence that those reasons were pretextual. See Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579, 592 (6th Cir. 2002) (“An employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext.”). Alexander has failed to raise an issue of material fact as to whether the proffered reasons for his removal were a pretext for retaliation. He has not shown that they “had no basis in fact,” “did not actually motivate” the dean’s decision, or were “not sufficient to motivate” that decision. Manzer, 29 F.3d at 1084. Rather, his own deposition testimony indicates that he had made little progress on the dean’s prioritized tasks at the time of his removal. Although Alexander was given no written warning, the University Handbook does not indicate that prior written warning is required before removing a professor from an administrative position. Alexander’s “shifting reasons” - 12 - No. 10-3358 Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, et al. argument also fails. The fact that a defendant offers “shifting justifications” for an adverse employment action may sometimes be evidence of pretext. Cicero, 280 F.3d at 592. “When the justification for an adverse employment action changes during litigation, that inconsistency raises an issue whether the proffered reason truly motivated the defendants’ decision.” Ibid. But an inference of pretext is not warranted here. At the time of Alexander’s removal, the dean cited his failure to make progress on the prioritized tasks as the reason he was being replaced. In his deposition, the dean listed a litany of additional reasons for his dissatisfaction with Alexander’s performance as BSSW Director. Even so, the dean consistently emphasized Alexander’s failure to make progress on the tasks. In other words, the proffered reasons did not change during the course of this litigation.