Hargrave v. University of Washington
113 F. Supp. 3d 1085
W.D. Wash.2015Background
- Dr. Timothy Hargrave, an assistant professor at University of Washington Bothell (2006–2012), was denied tenure and promotion after two consecutive review cycles (2011 and 2012); he sued the University and several faculty/administrators for discrimination (age, race, national origin, sex) and for aiding-and-abetting under WLAD, plus breach of contract against the University.
- UW’s multi-level tenure process: candidate dossier → P&T committee (with external reviews) → department faculty vote → dean recommendation → Campus Council → Vice Chancellor/Chancellor → Provost → President. Business School guidelines require a “promise of attaining a national reputation” and a base of publications in high-quality refereed journals.
- In 2011 Hargrave had four publications including a highly-cited Academy of Management Review (AMR) article; the P&T committee recommended tenure but senior faculty split and decision was postponed one year to allow more publications.
- In 2012 Hargrave had mixed results: one new lower-ranked publication and two prior submissions failed; faculty again divided, Campus Council and administrators recommended denial, and the Provost denied tenure. Hargrave withdrew an internal administrative appeal after unfavorable preliminary discovery rulings and later filed this suit; EEOC dismissed his charge.
- The court excluded post-decision evidence (publications/citation increases after tenure decisions) and Google Scholar citation counts not known to reviewers; it considered journal-ranking evidence and the materials actually before reviewers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of tenure was discriminatory (race, national origin, age, sex) | Hargrave: his scholarship (notably AMR article) and metrics showed he was at least as qualified as comparators; adverse votes by some faculty reflect discrimination, and some faculty favored Indian colleagues | University: denied tenure for legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason—deficient scholarship, low output, downward trajectory, reliance on dissertation advisor; decisions were multi‑level and based on academic judgment | Court: Summary judgment for Defendants; Hargrave failed to show pretext or discriminatory motive; academic judgment disputes insufficient to prove discrimination |
| Whether comparative evidence (three named comparators) proves pretext | Hargrave: comparators had equal or lesser records and were treated more favorably, raising inference of discrimination | UW: comparators’ records, trajectories, teaching needs, and hiring context justified favorable outcomes; comparators are not clearly inferior | Held: Comparators not so inferior that reasonable juror would find Hargrave clearly superior; evidence does not establish pretext |
| Whether individual defendants can be liable for aiding and abetting under WLAD | Hargrave: individual faculty who opposed him aided/abetted discrimination | Defendants: no underlying discriminatory act by University was proved, so aiding/abetting fails | Held: Dismissed aiding-and-abetting claims — no underlying discrimination established |
| Breach of contract claim based on Business School tenure guideline (“promise of attaining a national reputation”) and exhaustion of administrative remedies | Hargrave: guideline creates contractual obligation; faculty failed to apply it, entitling him to relief | UW: guideline is a criterion among many; Hargrave failed to exhaust administrative remedies (withdrew appeal) and the University did consider the standard; even on merits, guideline not a guarantee | Held: Contract claim dismissed—failure to exhaust administrative remedies; on merits guideline is not a guarantee and the record shows the standard was considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (mixed‑motive proof under Title VII)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (pretext requires showing employer's reason false and discrimination real)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (evidentiary rules on pretext and reasonable inferences)
- Elsayed Mukhtar v. Calif. State Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053 (courts defer to academic judgments)
- Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185 ("clearly superior" comparator standard)
- Lynn v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 656 F.2d 1337 (prima facie elements in academic tenure cases)