Court Opinion

ID: 9786684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:38.834539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:47.524933
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10201         Document: 00516878769             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10201
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               August 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Anoosh Rakhshandeh,                                                                Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Texas Tech University,

                                                Defendant—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:20-CV-110
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Anoosh Rakhshandeh appeals the district court’s grant of summary
   judgment on his Title VII claim based on national origin and religion. Because
   the district court did not err when it determined that Rahkshandeh was not
   denied tenure, we AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10201      Document: 00516878769           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 23-10201

                                          I
          Texas Tech University hired Rakhshandeh as a tenure-track assistant
   professor for its animal science department in 2013. Promotion to a professor
   with tenure is an eight-step process at Texas Tech, culminating in a
   recommendation for or against tenure from the President of the university to
   the board of trustees. Only the President or board of trustees may grant or
   deny tenure. Every other layer of review gives either a recommendation for
   or against granting tenure and moves to the next step.
          In 2018, his final year of eligibility, Rakhshandeh applied for tenure.
   The first layer of review, a departmental vote of professors with tenure, gave
   a unanimous recommendation against granting tenure. The second layer of
   review was a recommendation from the department head, Dr. Michael Orth,
   who also recommended against granting tenure. Rakhshandeh met with Orth
   who told him that he spoke with the dean of the college and the provost, and
   both said his tenure application had no chance of success at the higher levels
   of review; Rakhshandeh subsequently confirmed this with both officials.
   Worrying about the prospect of a tenure denial in his file, Rakhshandeh, with
   Orth’s encouragement, withdrew his application for tenure. Because 2018
   was his final year of eligibility, Rakhshandeh was not able to apply for tenure
   again and was given a terminal appointment, ending his career at Texas Tech
   in May 2020.
          Rakhshandeh sued Texas Tech, alleging Title VII violations based on
   national origin and religion. Texas Tech moved to dismiss for lack of
   jurisdiction alleging standing and ripeness issues and failure to state a claim,
   on the ground that an adverse employment action had not occurred. The
   district court denied the first motion because the jurisdictional argument was
   intertwined with the merits of the claim but requested supplemental briefing

                                              2
Case: 23-10201      Document: 00516878769          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                    No. 23-10201

   on the second question and converted it into a motion for summary
   judgment. The district court granted Texas Tech’s motion for summary
   judgment and Rahkshandeh timely appealed.
                                             II
          “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo[.]” Tex. Ent.
   Ass’n, Inc. v. Hegar, 10 F.4th 495, 504 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Certain
   Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Axon Pressure Prods. Inc., 951 F.3d 248, 255
   (5th Cir. 2020)). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that
   there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
   to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “We view the
   evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable
   inferences in that party's favor.” King v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 853 F. App’x 971,
   973 (5th Cir. 2021).
          In tenure denial cases, the plaintiff must state a prima facie case of
   discrimination by showing: (1) he belongs to a protected group; (2) he was
   qualified for tenure; and (3) he was denied tenure in circumstances
   permitting an inference of discrimination. Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116
   F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court determined that
   Rakhshandeh was not denied tenure because he voluntarily withdrew his
   application before a final decision and therefore failed to state a prima facie
   case of discrimination, even if the other two elements were met. We agree. It
   is true a final decision denying tenure may be an adverse employment action.
   Id. (noting that denial of tenure decisions are not exempt from judicial
   scrutiny). However, a withdrawal of a tenure application before it can be
   denied is not an adverse employment action. Okruhlik v. Univ. of Arkansas,
   395 F.3d 872, 879 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that intermediate
   recommendations do not constitute adverse employment actions for

                                             3
Case: 23-10201         Document: 00516878769                Page: 4       Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                           No. 23-10201

   purposes of Title VII denial of tenure claims). Accordingly, the district court
   correctly determined that Rakhshandeh was not denied tenure.
           Rakhshandeh also argues for the first time on appeal that because Orth
   encouraged Rakhshandeh to withdraw his application for tenure, he was
   constructively discharged. We have recognized constructive discharge when
   conditions become so intolerable a reasonable employee would feel
   compelled to resign. Perret v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 770 F.3d 336, 338 (5th
   Cir. 2014) (quoting Aryain v. Wal–Mart Stores Texas LP, 534 F.3d 473, 480
   (5th Cir. 2008)). We also recognize constructive discharge when the
   employee receives an ultimatum to “quit or be fired.” Id. We decline to
   address whether Rakhshandeh’s withdrawal of his tenure application would
   arise to the level of constructive discharge because this issue was not properly
   presented to the district court. Arguments not presented to the district court
   are forfeited. Garcia v. Orta, 47 F.4th 343, 349 (5th Cir. 2022). 1
           The district court correctly determined that Rahkshandeh was not
   denied tenure. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment
   is AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           1 The Fifth Circuit recognizes two exceptions when an argument not presented to

   the district court may be argued before the court of appeals. Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8
   F.4th 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2021). They are: (1) if a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is
   implicated; and (2) if the question is one of pure law and not answering it would be unjust.
   Id. Here, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not in question as the issue before us is a
   federal question. In addition, this question is not purely one of law because whether the
   recommendation to withdraw a tenure application is a constructive discharge involves
   questions of fact. As no exception to the general rule applies, we decline to address the issue
   of constructive discharge.

                                                      4