Huang v. Ohio State University
2:19-cv-01976
| S.D. Ohio | Oct 26, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Meng Huang sued The Ohio State University (OSU) and Dr. Giorgio Rizzoni alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and Title IX.
- Huang moved to recuse Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because Judge Vascura taught one section of a one‑credit Depositions class as an adjunct at OSU’s Moritz College of Law.
- Plaintiff knew the judge had taught in the past but asserts she only recently discovered current teaching and therefore did not waive recusal.
- Plaintiff argued the teaching created an appearance of partiality and speculated the judge might have access to OSU materials or contacts relevant to the case; Judge Vascura denied any relevant personal knowledge, access, or relationship with the College of Engineering or Professor Rizzoni.
- The judge emphasized the law school’s relative autonomy within a large university, noted past local precedent declining automatic recusal for part‑time adjunct teaching, and stated her duty to sit absent disqualification; her Fall 2020 teaching had concluded and she had no ongoing OSU contract.
- Ruling: The motion to recuse was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Vascura must recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455 for teaching as an adjunct at OSU’s law school | Adjunct teaching at OSU law creates appearance of partiality; judge may have access/contacts or be a professional colleague | Part‑time law‑school teaching of a virtually autonomous unit does not create a reasonable appearance of partiality; no personal knowledge or access; plaintiff waived past teaching; duty to sit absent disqualification | Motion denied: objective appearance‑of‑partiality standard not met; recusal not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1993) (recusal inquiry is not based on the subjective view of a party)
- United States v. Adams, 722 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2013) (recusal required where a reasonable person with knowledge of all facts would question impartiality)
- Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2016) (§ 455 imposes an objective appearance‑of‑partiality standard)
- Union Planters Bank v. L & J Dev. Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1997) (close appearance‑of‑partiality questions require recusal)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Yashinsky, 170 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 1999) (burden on the moving party to justify disqualification)
- Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824 (1972) (judge has an equally strong duty to sit where not disqualified)