Opinion ID: 3150045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chen’s Employment at CCNY

Text: CCNY is the flagship institution in the CUNY system. To identify and attract talented educators and scholars, the College hires them as assistant professors — a tenure‐track position subject to annual review and renewal. Every year, an executive committee in each of CCNY’s departments evaluates the assistant professors under its jurisdiction before deciding whether to reappoint them. The committees consider the candidates’ “teaching effectiveness,” “scholarly and professional growth,” “service” to the public and the institution, J.A. 180, and whether candidates demonstrate “satisfactory qualities of personality and character . . . and [a] willingness to cooperate with others for the good of the institution.” J.A. 166. As assistant professors move closer to tenure, 4 the evaluations become “progressively rigorous . . . to reflect the greater expectations of more experienced faculty members.” J.A. 181. In September 2007, Chen secured a position as an assistant professor of Asian Studies in CCNY’s Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures. Chen, a Taiwanese woman, is a scholar in the fields of East Asian languages and cultures, Chinese comparative literatures, and women’s and gender studies. She holds degrees from the National Sun Yat‐sen University in Taiwan, Columbia University, and Purdue University, and has published three books and over twenty articles in academic journals. During the 2007‐2008 school year, Chen taught two Chinese courses in the fall, worked on two books and several academic articles, and undertook several projects within the Asian Studies program. In Chen’s annual evaluation, Richard F. Calichman, the Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, recorded his impression of Chen’s first year at CCNY in a memorandum dated June 2, 2008. He noted that Chen was a “committed teacher and scholar” who had done “everything that was asked of her in terms of department service.” J.A. 185. Calichman, however, had also “received several faculty complaints regarding what some perceive[d] as her overaggressiveness and lack of tact.” Id. 5 These “complaints were voiced primarily in the fall semester,” Calichman noted, “suggesting that Prof. Chen has since improved her relations with other faculty in the department.” Id. Nonetheless, Calichman stated that he would “continue to monitor th[e] situation.” Id. Chen was reappointed for the 2008‐2009 academic year. This academic year proved to be a fateful one for the Plaintiff‐Appellant. Heading into the year, the President of CCNY appointed Chen as the Interim Director of the Asian Studies program. In addition to this role, Chen was scheduled to teach one of two introductory Chinese courses offered by the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures during the spring. Spring semester began on January 28, 2009. That morning, Chen met a middle‐aged male student (the “Student”) who had registered for her Chinese course. The Student’s “persistent demands for [Chen’s] time and attention,” in Chen’s words, quickly became a problem. J.A. 60. On that first day of classes, the Student, who had earlier written Chen to express his interest in taking her class, appeared at Chen’s office for office hours and stayed there for about two hours until class began. He then attended class and, when the instructional period ended, waited for Chen before leaving the 6 classroom. As Chen left, he followed her out the door, “talking with” her as she went from the classroom back to her office. J.A. 476. The Student engaged in similar behavior on two subsequent class days. Chen found his conduct strange, and she reports that she grew increasingly apprehensive on account of his behavior in these encounters. In an effort to show the Student that he was spending too much time in her office, Chen pointed out that “other people” had been waiting to speak with her “for more than ten minutes or fifteen minutes.” J.A. 480. She did not, however, tell him that he made her feel afraid or that she felt he was acting inappropriately. After these three classes, Chen approached Calichman about the Student, described the situation, and asked that the Student be transferred out of her class. Chen says that Calichman “gave [her] verbal support” and “immediately approved to transfer” the Student to the other introductory Chinese course, effective February 5. J.A. 481. The Student appeared in the Asian Studies office shortly before Chen’s scheduled classes on six subsequent days between February 5 and March 5. When he tried to speak with her on at least one occasion, Chen “just [said] hi and then immediately continue[d] to [her] 7 classroom.” J.A. 484. These encounters stopped, however, in early March, and Chen thereafter had no contact with the Student for about two months. At that point, at the end of April, Chen began to focus on class enrollment for the fall semester of 2009. Chen knew that she would be teaching the only upper‐level Chinese course in the fall and she asked the other introductory Chinese professor about which students planned to continue with Chinese studies. The professor told her that the Student intended to register for the upper‐level course. Concerned about dealing with the Student again, Chen sent Calichman an email explaining the situation. Calichman forwarded her message to John Reynolds, the Dean of CCNY’s Humanities Division, who asked Deputy Dean Geraldine Murphy to meet with Chen about the situation. Murphy met with Chen on May 6, 2009 and, after Chen informed her that the Student was neither physically nor sexually threatening, directed Chen to speak with CCNY’s Director for Students with Disabilities, Beth Lesen, who “regularly teaches courses on dealing with difficult students.” J.A. 219. The next day, Chen met with Lesen. Chen recalled that Lesen was “understanding and supportive,” and provided examples of how Chen could “set up boundaries with the student” if he joined her class — for instance, by 8 informing him that he might “consider finding a tutor” so as to benefit from more individualized instruction than she could provide, or by reserving portions of her office hours for other students. J.A. 501‐02. Shortly after the meeting, Lesen sent Chen a follow‐up email asking her to “let me know how things go with that student,” and assuring her that, “if the situation does not improve after you have created some boundaries . . . I will be able to step in and assist you further. Definitely keep me posted.” J.A. 442. Chen “assumed” that this email was an instruction to meet with the Student immediately.1 J.A. 325. As a result, she arranged for a meeting between herself, the Student, and the Student’s introductory Chinese professor, Chih‐ping Ma, on May 13, 2009. At the meeting, Chen presented the Student with a form entitled “Ya‐chen Chen’s Written Document for [the Student’s] Confirmation of Understanding,” which read: According to Dr. Beth Lesen’s opinion, I am writing down the rules for [the Student’s] Participation in my CHIN 225 class in fall 2009. Professor Chih‐ping Ma is the witness. 1 Chen never testified that Lesen instructed her to immediately meet with the Student during Chen and Lesen’s meeting. Instead, Chen’s deposition clearly states that Chen assumed such a directive (for an immediate meeting) from the follow‐up email. Contrary to the assertion in Chen’s brief on appeal, moreover, that the “e‐mail suggested that Chen ‘set up boundaries’ before the end of the semester,’” Appellant’s Br. at 10 (emphasis added), the email includes no such suggestion. 9 Chinese tutor as the front line for academic questions or learning problems Maximum use of my office hours: five to ten minutes every week Do not block the doorways of classrooms or offices Keep an appropriate distance from professors and classmates Class matters should be first brought to the instructor, not administrative heads Harmony with classmates and respect for the instructor Do not rush the instructor before the class starts The instructor reserves the right to take actions against unpredicted or uncomfortable situations J.A. 193. She requested that the Student sign it. He refused and immediately went to Lesen, expressing hurt and confusion and asking “why [Chen] had never told him that he was doing something she didn’t like.” J.A. 189. Chen appeared at Lesen’s office later that day with the intention of informing Lesen that the Student had refused to accept the boundaries she set. According to Chen, Lesen reacted by faulting Chen for not “us[ing] stronger words to confront the student.” J.A. 509. To demonstrate what Chen should have done, Lesen “yelled very loudly at [her] and asked [her] to repeat a very, very simple English word, stop . . . maybe six or eight times.” J.A. 509. Chen also claims that Lesen “indicat[ed] that [the Student] never harassed” her and that everything was in Chen’s “imagination.” J.A. 335. 10 Lesen presented a different version of events in an email to Calichman, Murphy, and Reynolds dated two days later. Describing the encounter as “one of the most frustrating meetings I have ever had with a professor,” Lesen reported telling Chen “that she should not have sought the student out when he is not currently in any of her classes . . . , may not create any preconditions for registration . . . , [and] must communicate requests and allow students opportunities to change their behavior.” J.A. 189. Lesen added that Chen “spent hours (literally) refusing to accept any responsibility for her own actions, asserting that the student had done unacceptable things and should have ‘gotten the message’ that she was uncomfortable though she never once actually told him.” J.A. 189. Lesen also asserted that Chen “showed less than no concern for the student” and also “made clear that she does not have time in her schedule for students who require more attention than she is willing to provide, even if they seek that time during her office hours.” Id. After receiving Lesen’s email, Calichman scheduled a meeting between himself, Chen, and Murphy to be held on May 20, 2009. Chen says that Calichman did not give her a clear sense of what the meeting would cover, but it soon became clear that Calichman and Murphy wanted to discuss the incident 11 with the Student. Chen reports that both Calichman and Murphy adopted Lesen’s view of the situation, blaming Chen for not “stop[ping] the student with clear and stronger words.” J.A. 514. Calichman also presented Chen with a memo that, in his view, summarized the meeting. The memo states that he and Murphy advised Chen that it “is inappropriate to intervene with students who are not currently in one’s class,” “to recruit other professors for help in such intervention,” “to present and pressure [students] into signing a contract‐like document listing certain conditions that must be satisfied in order for students to enroll in [a] course,” and “to conduct what is, in effect, a smear campaign against [a] student[].”2 J.A. 195. Chen signed this memo to confirm that she had read it and noted that she would write her own summary of the events. The next day, Calichman again met with Chen to present his evaluation of her performance during the 2008‐2009 academic year. As in his evaluation for the 2007‐2008 year, Calichman praised Chen’s “fine teaching record” and her “productivity as a scholar,” noting that Chen received strong teaching reviews, published new scholarship, and presented at several conferences. J.A. 202. But 2 The record is undisputed that in the context of the May 13 incident, Chen contacted other professors requesting information about the Student. 12 “[r]egarding the matter of collegiality,” he felt that Chen “still ha[d] considerable room for improvement.” Id. He explained: My remarks in last year’s evaluation touched upon her overaggresiveness and lack of tact, as perceived by several of her colleagues. Comments of this nature have continued, despite my attempts to provide guidance throughout the school year . . . . Specifically, several faculty members in Asian Studies have come to my office to complain of her conduct, specifically mentioning that they found Prof. Chen unreasonably defensive and difficult to work with. In addition, a disturbing incident took place earlier this month in which Prof. Chen acted inappropriately toward a student with whom she had problems . . . . Id.3 The evaluation then described Chen’s encounter with the Student, Lesen’s report of Chen’s “unwillingness to claim responsibility for her inappropriate conduct,” and the May 20 meeting between Chen, Calichman, and Murphy. Id.