Dalia Rashdan (Mohamed) v. Marc Geissberger
764 F.3d 1179
9th Cir.2014Background
- Rashdan, an Egyptian dentist, enrolled in the University of the Pacific’s two-year International Dental Studies Program to credential for practice in the United States.
- Geissberger called Rashdan’s clinical work “Third World Dentistry” within earshot of others after a failed crown seating.
- Hakim later referred to Rashdan as “TW” in a casual remark and she signed an email as “Dalia Rashdan Mohamed a.k.a. T.W.”
- Four days before graduation Rashdan was not recommended for graduation and told she must remediate; she enrolled in additional clinical work but did not improve and was ultimately offered a remediation plan.
- Rashdan filed suit alleging national origin discrimination under Title VI; the district court granted summary judgment for the University and others, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework from Title VII to Title VI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonnell Douglas framework applies to Title VI claims | Rashdan argues Title VII framework should govern Title VI discrimination. | Goes with circuit practice that McDonnell Douglas applies to Title VI. | Yes, McDonnell Douglas applies. |
| Whether Rashdan established a prima facie case of national origin discrimination | Direct/indirect evidence supports discrimination. | Evidence insufficient to infer discrimination; comparators lacking context. | No prima facie case established. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving disparate treatment in Title VII cases)
- Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
- Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 820 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1987) (direct ethnic statements can be insufficient to prove discrimination)
- Vasquez v. County of L.A., 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (discusses direct vs. indirect evidence in discrimination)
- Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (applies framework to Title VI claims)
- Dandy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 388 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2004) (illustrates evaluating similarly situated comparators)