Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, 429 F. App'x 481

Alexander, an African-American professor at OSU, sued for race discrimination, retaliation, and Due Process violations under §1983 and Title VII.
He was removed as Director of the BSSW program in 2006 and alleged a pattern of discriminatory pay raises and evaluations through 2007.
He filed EEOC/OCRC charges alleging sex/race discrimination and retaliation; he sought public records and, during discovery, a mirror-imaging of the dean’s hard drives.
OSU and related defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment and deemed the discovery Motion moot.
The court held Alexander failed to establish prima facie cases or pretext for discrimination; and his due process claim failed because he had access to requested survey data.
Appellate review was de novo; the court reaffirmed that there were no triable issues of material fact for discrimination, retaliation, or due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion on discovery	Alexander claimed missing emails could be recovered by cloning the dean's drives.	Defendants complied with Rule 26(a); discovery motion moot.	No abuse; district court did not err in denying the motion.
Whether replacement as BSSW Director supports Race discrimination	Dean replaced Alexander with someone outside the protected class to avoid suit.	Replacement by an African-American did not prove discriminatory intent; must show pretext.	No prima facie case; no showing replacement outside protected class.
Whether 2006 raise supports Race discrimination	Small raise reflected racial bias in evaluation by the dean.	Evaluation criteria were applied consistently; disparities explained by performance.	No prima facie discrimination; no pretext shown.
Whether 2007 special salary adjustment supports Race discrimination	Lower adjustments for full professors with higher scores showed discriminatory intent.	No evidence other full professors received higher ratings for similar work; pool decisions based on merit.	No prima facie case; no pretext established.
Whether due process claim succeeds based on survey data delay	Delay in providing survey responses deprived meaningful access to the courts.	Access to survey data eventually provided; no evidence of tampering or material hindrance.	No due process violation; no denial of meaningful access.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for discrimination and retaliation)
Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (pretext framework and evidentiary standard clarified)
Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., Inc., 348 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2003) (pretext evidence and causation standards in retaliation)
Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 529 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2008) (causation and protected activity in retaliation claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (definition of materially adverse actions for retaliation claims)
Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (changing justification as potential evidence of pretext)
Jones v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 617 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and discovery rulings on abuse of discretion)
Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 119 F.3d 1259 (6th Cir. 1997) (due process and access-to-courts considerations)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)