FERESU v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON
1:14-cv-01227
S.D. Ind.May 2, 2017Background
- Dr. Shingairai Feresu, a Zimbabwe-born epidemiologist, was hired by Indiana University (IU) in 2010 as a tenure‑track faculty member (initially labeled assistant professor, later redesignated associate) to help create an epidemiology program.
- Her offer letter set tenure criteria across teaching, research, and service; third‑year (pre‑tenure) review was the critical evaluation point for reappointment.
- The Pre‑Tenure Review Committee found her research unsatisfactory; that recommendation was affirmed by her department chair, the dean, and the Vice Provost, resulting in non‑reappointment and a terminal year ending May 31, 2014.
- Feresu filed EEOC Charges in 2013 and 2014 alleging discrimination (race, sex, national origin) and disability discrimination; she received a right‑to‑sue letter and then sued IU asserting Title VII and Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims (ADA and §1981 claims previously dismissed on immunity grounds).
- IU moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Feresu failed to meet legitimate expectations (tenure denial non‑discriminatory), (2) many alleged acts were time barred by the EEOC 300‑day rule, and (3) the EPA claim was outside the scope of her EEOC charges and, in any event, lacked merit.
- The court granted summary judgment for IU, concluding there was no admissible evidence that the tenure decision was motivated by race, sex, or national origin, and the EPA claim failed both procedurally (not exhausted) and substantively (legitimate, gender‑neutral pay justification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII discrimination in tenure/non‑reappointment | Feresu contends she was treated worse because of race, national origin, and sex (lower rank, less start‑up funds, sexist remarks, removal from class) | IU contends Feresu failed to meet legitimate expectations (unsatisfactory research); review process was proper and unanimous; no similarly situated comparator shows discrimination; many incidents time‑barred | Court: grant summary judgment for IU — no admissible evidence that adverse action was due to protected class; research‑based, non‑discriminatory reasons supported the decision; time‑barred incidents excluded |
| Timeliness of pre‑2012 incidents | Feresu relied on incidents dating to hiring and 2012 | IU: EEOC 300‑day rule bars acts before Dec. 21, 2012 relative to Oct. 17, 2013 charge | Court: incidents before cutoff are time barred and cannot support Title VII claim |
| Equal Pay Act claim (unequal pay vs male colleague) | Feresu asserts she was paid less than male associate hired later (Bidulescu) and less than some peers | IU: EPA claim not raised in EEOC charges (not exhausted); even on merits pay differential explained by market/previous salary and status differences (Feresu in terminal year with salary freeze; Bidulescu recruited with higher market salary) | Court: grant summary judgment — EPA claim not within EEOC charge scope; alternatively, IU offered legitimate, sex‑neutral reason for pay difference |
| Evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment | Feresu relies on pro se filings, emails, and narrative alleging bias and mistreatment | IU: many of Feresu’s submissions are unauthenticated, inadmissible, conclusory, or fail to rebut the documented, multi‑level review findings | Court: grant summary judgment — pro se status does not excuse requirement for admissible evidence; plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and inferences)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Blasdel v. Northwestern Univ., 687 F.3d 813 (tenure denial discrimination is difficult to prove; absence of fixed criteria)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (totality of evidence; direct vs indirect proof treated together)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (Equal Pay Act framework and defenses)
- Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582 (summary judgment factual‑viewing standard in Seventh Circuit)
- Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487 (party bearing burden must present evidence at summary judgment)
- Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104 (summary judgment as the moment to show admissible evidence to convince a factfinder)