Balas v. Reveley
3:16-cv-00553
E.D. Va.Aug 8, 2017Background
- Balas, a Turkish national hired as an assistant professor of marketing at Longwood University, applied for tenure after her five-year probationary period; tenure decisions followed sequential reviews by department chair, P&T Committee, Dean, Provost, and Board of Visitors.
- Throughout her probationary period, Longwood raised concerns about Balas’s teaching (speech cadence/accents, classroom presence) and the quality/venue of her scholarship; she received mixed review ratings and warnings about scholarship and teaching.
- In 2012 Longwood issued a terminating contract, which Balas appealed; the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee (FSGC) recommended reversal and Balas was reappointed for another year.
- In the 2014 tenure review, Department Chair White recommended against tenure citing scholarship quality; the P&T Committee unanimously recommended against tenure based on teaching; Dean and Provost also recommended denial; Balas’s internal appeals were denied and she received a terminating contract in May 2015.
- Balas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for national-origin discrimination and retaliation, alleging comments about not being a "good fit" and complaints about her accent evidenced discriminatory/retaliatory motive; defendants moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under § 1981 (denial of tenure) | Balas contends denial was based on national origin/ethnicity and derogatory remarks about not "fitting in"/accent show discriminatory intent | Longwood says tenure denial was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory academic judgments about teaching and scholarship | Summary judgment for defendants: plaintiff failed to prove direct evidence and did not show pretext under McDonnell Douglas |
| Retaliation under § 1981 (opposition activity) | Balas asserts she engaged in protected complaints (signed terminating contract note, responses to evaluations, recusal request) and denial of tenure was retaliatory | Longwood contends it had nondiscriminatory reasons for denial and temporal gaps plus independent evaluators negate causation | Summary judgment for defendants: plaintiff cannot show causation or pretext; temporal gaps too large and independent adverse decisions break causal chain |
| Direct-evidence claim (derogatory remarks) | Remarks by Dean Barrett ("not a good fit") and P&T member La Roche ("did not fit in") show discriminatory animus | Defendants argue remarks were stray/isolated, temporally remote, and unrelated to the tenure decision; Barrett’s comment was not about national origin | Court holds remarks are stray/isolated, not directly tied to the 2014 tenure denial, thus not direct evidence |
| Procedural irregularities / FSGC findings | Balas points to FSGC findings of procedural errors and urges they show bias or pretext | Longwood notes FSGC also found warnings about scholarship/teaching and affirmed substantive concerns; independent reviewers (White) upheld academic judgments | Court finds procedural errors did not show substantive pretext; FSGC itself concluded decision not surprising given longstanding concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden when nonmoving party lacks essential evidence)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456 F.3d 427 (standards for § 1981 discrimination proof)
- Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (application of McDonnell Douglas to retaliation claims)
- Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club, 180 F.3d 598 (stray remarks doctrine and relevance to adverse decisions)
- Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311 (discussing "fit" rationales and discrimination issues)