Cicalese, M.D. v. The University of Texas Medical Branch
3:17-cv-00067
| S.D. Tex. | Mar 22, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Fabio Cicalese and Elena Rastellini are long‑time UTMB faculty (both born in Italy, now U.S. citizens) who allege national‑origin discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII after leadership changes.
- They claim adverse actions (demotions, loss of directorships/endowed chair, salary reductions, restrictions on surgeries, curtailed research support, removal of permanent faculty licensure waivers) tied to Provost Danny Jacobs and Chair Douglas Tyler.
- Plaintiffs point to derogatory remarks about Italians by Jacobs and Tyler and to alleged disparate treatment of unnamed non‑Italian colleagues as proof of discriminatory motive.
- UTMB moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint lacks plausible factual allegations of discriminatory intent or adequately pleaded similarly situated comparators.
- The district court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard while considering McDonnell Douglas framework guidance, found plaintiffs’ comparator allegations vague and the alleged remarks to be stray, and granted dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly pleads Title VII disparate‑treatment based on national origin | Plaintiffs allege adverse employment actions caused by Italian origin and cite derogatory remarks and purportedly better treatment of non‑Italians | UTMB contends plaintiffs plead only vague comparators and conclusory allegations, not facts showing discriminatory motive | Dismissed: complaint fails to plausibly allege discriminatory motive or adequate comparators |
| Whether direct evidence (comments) supports discriminatory motive | Plaintiffs point to statements (“go back to Italy,” “these Italians,” “Italian thing”) as direct evidence | UTMB argues remarks are stray, temporally and circumstantially unrelated to adverse actions | Dismissed: remarks deemed stray under CSC Logic factors; not direct evidence |
| Whether circumstantial proof under McDonnell Douglas was sufficiently pleaded (similarly situated comparators) | Plaintiffs claim non‑Italian faculty received more favorable treatment (tenure, duties, lack of restrictions) | UTMB: comparator allegations are unnamed, vague, and fail the “nearly identical” requirement | Dismissed: comparators not pleaded with the required specificity to show nearly identical circumstances |
| Whether facts support a hostile work environment claim | Plaintiffs assert Jacobs/Tyler created a hostile environment via harassment and disparate acts | UTMB: isolated/offhand comments and ordinary workplace disputes do not meet severe or pervasive standard | Dismissed: allegations amount to isolated/offhand remarks and adverse decisions; not severe or pervasive enough |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading prima facie case is not a rigid pleading requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial proof in disparate‑treatment cases)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (hostile work environment requires severe or pervasive harassment)
- Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (test for when workplace comments are probative vs. stray remarks)
- Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322 (affirming dismissal where complaint lacked factual allegations of discrimination)
- Jackson v. Cal‑Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (discussing application of CSC Logic factors)