15 F.4th 1236
9th Cir.2021Background
- Jun Yu, a Chinese international student, completed coursework and his dissertation in Idaho State University's clinical psychology doctoral program but failed the required 2,000‑hour professional internship and was dismissed from the program.
- Multiple supervisors and ISU faculty repeatedly rated Yu’s professional progress as "unsatisfactory," citing limited English fluency, poor rapport formation with clients, and insufficient clinical competence.
- Yu sought approved offsite internships (including at the Cleveland Clinic); supervising clinicians there also evaluated him as below required competency and he was dismissed from the internship in April 2013.
- The Psychology Department’s Graduate Faculty unanimously voted to dismiss Yu from the program, concluding he posed a risk to clients and lacked essential clinical skills.
- Yu sued under Title VI for intentional discrimination based on race/national origin, presenting Dr. Leslie Zorwick as an expert on "aversive racism" (implicit bias). The district court heard a four‑day bench trial, admitted Zorwick’s testimony but gave it limited weight, and found Yu failed to prove intentional discrimination.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed under the clear‑error standard, concluding the record supported the district court’s factual finding that Yu was dismissed for legitimate competency reasons; the court declined to rule on the broader admissibility/probative value of implicit‑bias evidence under Title VI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ISU intentionally discriminated against Yu in violation of Title VI | Yu: ISU’s actions reflect race/national‑origin discrimination; patterns identified by expert show aversive racism | ISU: Dismissal was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory academic/clinical deficiencies and patient‑safety concerns | Court: Affirmed—Yu failed to prove intentional discrimination; district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether expert testimony about aversive racism/implicit bias can establish intentional discrimination | Yu/Zorwick: Aversive racism manifests in identifiable "hallmarks" that show discriminatory intent | ISU: Such testimony risks usurping credibility determinations and may be unreliable or unhelpful | Court: Did not decide the general question; upheld district court’s decision to admit but give limited weight to the testimony and found no error in outcome |
| Whether comments about English fluency are direct evidence of national‑origin discrimination | Yu: Linguistic criticisms are a proxy for unlawful national‑origin discrimination | ISU: Comments related to clinical competence (rapport, communication), essential in clinical training | Court: Held comments were tied to clinical competence and insufficient to show discriminatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (finding of intentional discrimination is a finding of fact)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (private Title VI plaintiffs must prove intentional discrimination)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (intentional discrimination inquiry requires totality of relevant facts)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (district court gatekeeping for expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert standard applies to technical/specialized testimony)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (summary‑judgment evidence standards)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext can support an inference of discriminatory intent)