Opinion ID: 2997825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dean Moss’s Alleged Conduct

Text: On appeal, Dean Moss cites Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir. 1988), for the proposition that there is no principle of superiors’ liability, either in tort law generally or in the law of constitutional torts, and argues that under Jones he is entitled to qualified immunity because, like his fellow supervisors, he never engaged in any conduct that violated Dr. Nanda’s constitutional rights. Under § 1983, however, supervisory liability can be established if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at the supervisor’s direction or with the supervisor’s knowledge and consent. See id. at 992-93 (finding that supervisor liability for constitutional torts will attach where a supervisor knows about the alleged conduct and facilitates it, approves it, condones it, or turns a blind eye for fear of what he or she might see). Since the facts as construed in a light most favorable to Dr. Nanda establish that Dr. Prabhakar could not have fired Dr. Nanda by himself, but instead needed the assistance of Dean Moss to facilitate Dr. Nanda’s termination, Dean Moss would not be entitled to qualified immunity if the facts as construed in a light most favorable to Dr. Nanda establish that Dean Moss was deliberately indifferent in facilitating Dr. Prabhakar’s discriminatory termination. See Anderson v. Cornejo, 355 10 No. 04-1641 F.3d 1021, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding that managers were entitled to qualified immunity absent evidence that the managers were deliberately indifferent toward complained of discrimination). Dean Moss explains that his conduct was limited to merely supervising the bad actor, Dr. Prabhakar, and claims that in concurring with Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation “[a]ll he really knew in July and August of 1998 was that Prabhakar and Nanda had clashed over administrative matters such as lab space and teaching assignments.” See Appellant’s Opening Brief at 20. It appears, however, that Dean Moss had every reason to question Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation, but instead chose not to do so. In looking at the facts in a light most favorable to Dr. Nanda, Dean Moss knew that Dr. Prabhakar had not sought the input from the Faculty Advisory Committee before making his recommendation to terminate Dr. Nanda. In addition, Dean Moss heard from several faculty members who both complained of Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation, and argued that Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation was based on Dr. Nanda’s race, gender or ethnicity. Moreover, Dean Moss met with Dr. Kenter about the similar problems she was having with Dr. Prabhakar, before Dr. Kenter filed a formal complaint. Dr. Kenter’s attorney also sent Dean Moss a letter dated July 27, 1998 contending that Dr. Prabhakar had discriminated against Dr. Kenter on the basis of her gender. Additionally, Dean Moss received copies of Dr. Nanda’s letter to Vice Dean Rice disputing her termination on gender grounds, and a July 13, 1998 letter Dr. Nanda wrote to the AFTC asserting that the terminal contract constituted a denial of her right to academic freedom. Finally, Dean Moss knew that on July 31, 1998, the Faculty Advisory Committee sent Dr. Prabhakar a memorandum asking him to reverse the terminal contract recommendation because he failed to seek its input in making the recommendation. No. 04-1641 11 In response to all of these events, Dean Moss chose to either discredit or completely ignore each of the complaints, concerns and allegations levied against Dr. Prabhakar and his recommendation to terminate Dr. Nanda. Indeed, if Dr. Nanda’s version of the facts is accurate, then Dean Moss approved Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation and then falsely communicated to Provost Hoffman that the faculty had met and voted to uphold the recommendation. In defending his role in ratifying and facilitating Dr. Nanda’s termination, Dean Moss analogizes himself to the supervisor defendants in Anderson and argues that at worst he was merely negligent, but not deliberately indifferent, in failing to follow up on the complaints, concerns and allegations levied against Dr. Prabhakar. In Anderson, the plaintiffs, 90 American citizens who were searched at O’Hare Airport, contended that United States Customs personnel chose them for non-routine searches because of their race and sex. 355 F.3d at 1022. In reversing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, this court held that in the case of one specific supervisor there was no evidence that the supervisor acted with deliberate indifference toward the complained-of discrimination where the supervisor in question was charged with reviewing the complaints of approximately 30,000 passengers selected for non-routine searches over the course of a year, and none of the complaints asserted the combination of race and sex discrimination alleged by plaintiffs. Id. at 1027. In comparing himself to the defendants in Anderson, Dean Moss ignores the notice and opportunity he was afforded to prevent the violation of Dr. Nanda’s constitutional rights including: (1) Dr. Nanda’s complaints of discrimination; (2) the claims of senior faculty within the Department; (3) the independent investigation done by the AFTC; and (4) Dr. Kenter’s simultaneous claims of similar treatment at 12 No. 04-1641 the hands of Dr. Prabhakar. In contrast, the supervisor defendant in Anderson never had any such notice or opportunity to investigate the alleged discrimination. Id. at 1026-27 (finding that there can be no deliberate indifference and therefore, no imputation of knowledge where there is no reason to think that a supervisor suspected that his subordinates were engaged in discrimination and then tried to shield them from guilt). As such, this court’s ruling in Anderson does not help Dean Moss. Dean Moss also attempts to insulate his behavior with the fact that he appointed a female department head from within the College of Medicine to investigate Dr. Nanda’s claims of discrimination once Dr. Nanda filed a grievance challenging her termination. Dean Moss holds out the appointment of Dr. Cohen as a shield to demonstrate that he did not merely ratify Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation but that he investigated these claims and took her claims seriously. In making this argument, Dean Moss focuses on the events subsequent to his ratification of Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation, but the correct focus of this appeal is Dean Moss’s role in facilitating Dr. Nanda’s termination between July 1, 1998, when Dean Moss received Dr. Prabhakar’s recommendation, and August 31, 1998 when the Board of Trustees accepted President Stukel’s recommendation to end Dr. Nanda’s employment. Accordingly, Dean Moss’s actions after the Board’s acceptance are both too little and too late to qualify him for immunity from this suit. The facts as construed in favor of Dr. Nanda suggest that Dean Moss did not investigate Dr. Nanda’s claims until he was told to investigate by Provost Hoffman, which was after Dean Moss had ratified the terminal contract recommendation, after he had already passed the recommendation on to Provost Hoffman, after the University set a termination date for Dr. Nanda, and after Dr. Nanda instituted her formal grievance. Dean Moss both ignored repeated complaints that Dr. No. 04-1641 13 Prabhakar’s terminal contract recommendation was motivated by gender and ethnic discrimination, and overlooked the fact that Dr. Prabhakar made the terminal contract recommendation without following proper process and procedure. Accordingly, the facts taken in the light most favorable to Dr. Nanda establish that Dean Moss was deliberately indifferent in facilitating Dr. Prabhakar’s discriminatory termination, and therefore violated Dr. Nanda’s constitutional rights.