Baldwin v. New York State, State University of New York, College at Buffalo
690 F. App'x 694
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Susan Baldwin, a SUNY Buffalo faculty member, applied for tenure in September 2011 after working at the college since 2002 and receiving mixed reviews stressing need for peer-reviewed publications.
- In spring 2011 Baldwin reported student complaints about inappropriate classroom remarks by her department head, Dr. Scott Roberts; she told Roberts and Dean Mark Severson.
- Roberts reviewed Baldwin’s tenure file in September 2011 and recommended denial, citing an inadequate publication record; he noted one article in a non-health journal and another with only 25% contribution.
- A faculty committee recommended promotion but did not consider tenure; Dean Severson independently investigated a disputed claim that Baldwin co-authored a grant proposal and recommended against tenure because of publication record and an apparent exaggeration of contributions.
- The provost and college president reviewed and denied tenure; Baldwin’s employment ended in January 2013. She sued under Title IX for retaliation, asserting denial of tenure was retaliation for reporting the student complaints.
- The district court granted summary judgment for SUNY-Buffalo; Baldwin appealed, challenging the summary judgment and denial of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baldwin made a prima facie Title IX retaliation claim | Baldwin argued she engaged in protected activity (reporting student complaints), the college knew, she suffered adverse action (tenure denial), and temporal proximity supports causation | SUNY argued it had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (publication record, disputed grant authorship) and no causal link shown | Court assumed prima facie case arguendo but addressed next burdens and found defendant offered legitimate reasons; plaintiff failed to show causation/pretext |
| Whether temporal proximity and Roberts’s change of view show causation/pretext | Baldwin relied on temporal proximity between complaints (spring 2011) and Roberts’s negative review (Sept. 2011) and claimed Roberts previously viewed her more favorably | SUNY pointed to Roberts’s earlier written concerns about lack of publications (Oct. 2010), showing consistency, and asserted other reviewers independently found problems | Court held temporal proximity alone insufficient and Roberts’s earlier warnings undercut inference of retaliatory motive |
| Whether other reviewers’ negative recommendations were tainted by retaliation | Baldwin argued Roberts’s recommendation may have biased subsequent reviewers (e.g., Severson) | SUNY showed Severson conducted an independent investigation (contacted Propis, met Baldwin, reviewed documents, interviewed witnesses) and cited separate reasons for denial | Court held speculation of taint insufficient; independent investigation supports that other reviewers’ decisions were not based on retaliation |
| Whether the HR e‑mail evidenced an explicit threat of retaliation | Baldwin cited HR e-mail suggesting complaint outcome "may impact" tenure decision as a threat | SUNY explained the e-mail merely described interplay of complaint timeline and tenure deadlines; it linked the outcome (not filing) to potential effect | Court found e‑mail ambiguous in context and not evidence of retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (recognizing Title IX retaliation claim)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharm. of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (burden‑shifting framework for Title IX retaliation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (articulation of burden‑shifting framework in employment discrimination)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (but‑for causation standard)
- Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment review de novo)
- Ya‑Chen Chen v. City Univ. of N.Y., 805 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (temporal proximity insufficient alone to show pretext)
- El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931 (2d Cir.) (on causation and pretext standards)
- Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg., 156 F.3d 396 (2d Cir.) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir.) (colleges may set their own tenure criteria)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir.) (courts defer to academic institutions on promotion criteria)
Disposition: Affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment for SUNY‑Buffalo; Baldwin failed to show but‑for causation or pretext.