81 F.4th 77
1st Cir.2023Background
- Melissa Ing was a non-tenure/contract-track associate professor at Tufts School of Dental Medicine (hired 2011) who applied for promotion to full professor in 2018.
- In 2017 Ing reported alleged sexual harassment by colleague Roland Vanaria to Tufts’ Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO); the investigator confirmed only an invitation to a date; Tufts nonetheless adjusted schedules and revoked Vanaria’s swipe access near Ing’s office.
- Ing submitted a promotion dossier (Teaching; Educational Leadership) in Feb. 2018; the Faculty, Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee (FAPTC) reviewed it twice and voted to deny promotion based principally on deficiencies in the Educational Leadership area (the purported "course director" role was a brief workshop).
- No member of the FAPTC knew about Ing’s 2017 harassment complaint when they evaluated her dossier; Tufts communicated the leadership/course-director deficiencies in multiple denial letters; Ing did not appeal.
- Andrea Zandona became department chair after the 2018 decision; Ing told Zandona about the harassment report in Dec. 2018; Ing alleges Zandona said in Jan. 2019 she “most likely” would not promote her, but Zandona thereafter met repeatedly with Ing, gave detailed suggestions, and ultimately declined to endorse the 2019 submission based on insufficient improvement.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Tufts on discrimination and retaliation claims and denied Ing’s Rule 59(e) motion; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination in denial of promotion | Ing says Tufts denied promotion because of sex (and thus she was qualified) | Tufts says Ing was not qualified under SDM criteria (lack of leadership/course directorship) | Court held Ing failed to show she met qualification prong and, even assuming prima facie case, showed no pretext for Tufts’ nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Procedural irregularities / pretext | Deviations (no minutes, delayed notice, draft letters, post-vote reviewer) show process was pretextual | Tufts shows FAPTC customarily did not keep minutes and contemporaneous notes focus on Educational Leadership deficiencies | Court held the irregularities were not "inexplicable and troubling" and did not support inference of pretext |
| Retaliation for reporting harassment | Temporal proximity and Zandona’s alleged comment support inference of retaliatory animus | Tufts notes no FAPTC member knew of complaint, Zandona repeatedly aided Ing and based decisions on dossier merits | Court held Ing failed to prove causal link/but-for causation; Zandona’s conduct undermined inference of retaliation |
| Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend judgment | Ing argued district court overlooked key facts about Zandona’s knowledge/intent | Tufts argued Ing rehashed arguments previously considered; no new evidence or clear error | Court held district court did not abuse discretion; Ing offered no newly discovered evidence or manifest legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Theidon v. Harvard Univ., 948 F.3d 477 (1st Cir. 2020) (applies McDonnell Douglas in academic promotion/tenure contexts and addresses causation/prima facie standards)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation under Title VII)
- Taite v. Bridgewater State Univ., Bd. of Trs., 999 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2021) (pretext and burden-shifting analysis in academic employment)
- Rodríguez-Cardi v. MMM Holdings, Inc., 936 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2019) (relevance of deviations from employer procedures to pretext inquiry)
- Ronda-Perez v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria--Puerto Rico, 404 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2005) (limitations of missing notes as evidence of pretext)
- Ahern v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (summary judgment inappropriate where plaintiff offers more than conclusory allegations)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standard; view facts in favor of nonmoving party)