Kahan v. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania
664 F. App'x 170
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Paul Kahan was hired as a probationary one-year assistant professor at Slippery Rock University (SRU) in Feb. 2009; his contract required renewal notice by April 1, 2010 and was subject to departmental and administrative recommendations.
- Early performance issues included late midterm grades, missing a faculty meeting, and a conflict with department secretary Charlene Winslow over treatment of her son (a student).
- Department evaluation committee, chair John Craig, and Dean Eva Tsuquiashi‑Daddesio initially recommended renewal, but after a second late grade submission and Winslow’s complaint, Craig and the Dean withdrew support and President Smith declined renewal on March 30, 2010. Kahan received an opportunity to respond and filed a grievance that was denied under the collective bargaining agreement.
- On May 18, 2010 Winslow reported a separate office incident alleging abusive and harassing language by Kahan; SRU campus police filed a complaint but the district attorney declined prosecution.
- Kahan alleged gender discrimination, hostile work environment, First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and other federal and state claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII gender discrimination (reverse discrimination) | Winslow’s influence and stereotypical views (e.g., calling Kahan "weird"/"violent male" and opposing renewal) caused nonrenewal because he is male | Nonrenewal resulted from performance issues (late grades, missed meeting) and Winslow’s complaints were not shown to be gender-based or timed to influence the renewal decision | Affirmed for defendants — plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case linking nonrenewal to gender bias |
| Hostile work environment (gender-based) | False accusations by Winslow (sexual harassment of her son) created a hostile environment tied to gender stereotyping | Complaints arose from classroom/disciplinary disputes, not gender bias; no evidence the conduct was because of gender | Affirmed — plaintiff offered no evidence that alleged conduct was due to gender, so no hostile-environment claim |
| Substantive due process | Nonrenewal violated substantive due process rights | Probationary (non‑tenured) faculty have no protected property interest in continued employment; no substantive due process violation | Affirmed — no protected property interest for probationary hire; substantive due process fails |
| Procedural due process | SRU denied adequate opportunity to respond before nonrenewal | Kahan received notice and submitted a March 28 memorandum and pursued a grievance; procedures in contract and CBA were followed | Affirmed — plaintiff received required process; no genuine dispute of procedural deprivation |
| First Amendment (retaliation/free speech) | Nonrenewal was retaliation for Kahan’s complaints about pressure to change a student’s grade | Nonrenewal was based on legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (failure to submit grades timely) and no evidence ties nonrenewal to protected speech | Affirmed — no evidence linking nonrenewal to protected speech |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 1999) (reverse-discrimination prima facie standard)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (elements of hostile work environment claim)
- Nicholas v. Penn. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2000) (no substantive due process property interest in tenured professorship)
- Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2008) (procedural due process requirements)
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary-judgment evidence view and inferences)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)