Hajjar-Nejad v. George Washington University
37 F. Supp. 3d 90
D.D.C.2014Background
- Hajjar-Nejad was a GW medical student (2004–2007) admitted to a third-year Honors curriculum; after clinical rotations in internal medicine, surgery, and OB/GYN he received multiple negative evaluations alleging clinical deficiencies, unprofessionalism, and issues with truthfulness and teamwork.
- Dean Schroth met with Hajjar‑Nejad, removed him from the Honors curriculum, and initiated a Professional Comportment Subcommittee review; the Subcommittee recommended remediation and repeating clerkships as appropriate.
- The Medical Student Evaluation Committee (MSEC) voted to recommend dismissal; Dean Scott dismissed Hajjar‑Nejad on July 26, 2007; an appeal to the VP’s designee (Sigelman) sustained the dismissal.
- Plaintiff filed administrative charges (DCOHR) alleging discrimination and retaliation; DCOHR found probable cause only as to retaliation but the administrative proceedings were later voluntarily withdrawn by plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued GW asserting breach of contract (limited to the Offer of Acceptance termination), discrimination under Title VI and §1981, and retaliation under Title VI/§1981; GW moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: did Offer of Acceptance or implied contract bar dismissal? | Hajjar‑Nejad says GW breached the contract by dismissing him from the MD program. | GW says the one‑page Offer does not limit post‑matriculation dismissals and regulations govern post‑matriculation discipline. | Court: Offer imposes no reciprocal obligation preventing dismissal; academic deference applies and dismissal was not arbitrary — breach claim dismissed. |
| Discrimination (Title VI/§1981): were adverse actions motivated by race, religion, or national origin? | Plaintiff contends evaluations, removal from Honors, Subcommittee/MSEC actions, transcript hold, and NBME notice were pretextual and discriminatory. | GW proffers nondiscriminatory, performance‑based reasons supported by contemporaneous evaluations and procedural compliance. | Court: No direct evidence; plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of pretext; discrimination claims dismissed. |
| Retaliation (Title VI/§1981): were plaintiff's complaints protected activity and did GW retaliate? | Plaintiff points to three written complaints (July 25, 2006 email; Sept. 22, 2006 motion; Apr. 21, 2007 brief) as protected activity and alleges subsequent adverse actions. | GW argues those communications did not allege discrimination on a protected basis and thus were not protected activity; actions were justified by performance concerns. | Court: The cited communications did not allege discrimination on protected grounds (no "something more" than grievance about supervision), so they are not protected activity; retaliation claim fails. |
| Procedural irregularities: did process defects show arbitrariness or pretext? | Plaintiff lists multiple procedural complaints (timing, Subcommittee composition, evidentiary practices, appeal review, transcript hold). | GW says it substantially complied with its Regulations; any minor deviations do not show discriminatory motive or arbitrariness in academic judgment. | Court: No material procedural irregularities that would overcome deference to academic decisionmaking; process did not create triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (prima facie burden and employer’s burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff may show pretext and allow jury to infer discrimination)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (judicial deference to academic decisions)
- Bd. of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (deference in academic dismissal decisions)
- Brady v. Livingood, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Circuit: once employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason, court asks whether evidence allows a jury to find it pretextual)