Nicholson v. Board of Trustees for the CT State Univ Sys, 3:08-cv-01250

Plaintiffs Nicholson, Bednarski, and Rajaravivarma were CCSU female professors under a union contract governing promotions/tenure.
DEC, Dean, and PTC evaluated portfolios per contract categories: load credit, creative activity, productive services, professional activity, and years in rank.
CCSU President Miller reviewed portfolios and decided whether to promote/tenure; Board of Trustees made final announcements.
Plaintiffs’ applications for promotion/tenure were denied; Miller’s stated reasons referenced average/adequate/weak productivity, teaching, and lack of external funding.
AAUP grievance led to reconsideration; Miller partially reconsidered, improving two plaintiffs but not Rajaravivarma.
During 2005-2006, numerous promotions/tenures occurred with several male/Caucasian applicants promoted, while Rajaravivarma was denied; later, CCSU investigations found insufficient evidence of discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether spoliation sanctions are warranted and what remedy is appropriate	Nicholson et al. seek judgment as sanction for spoliation.	Portfolio destruction not prejudicial; no relevant evidence.	Adverse inference sanction approved; not terminating judgment; spreads to trial as evidence of spoliation.
Whether plaintiffs can show gender discrimination in promotion decisions	Miller treated women less favorably; statistical and comparative evidence supports prima facie case.	Decisions based on portfolio criteria, not gender; no comparators proven.	Summary judgment denied on gender discrimination claims; evidence supports trial on discriminatory animus.
Whether Rajaravivarma’s race/national origin (and gender) discrimination claims survive	Higher promotions for Caucasian males and non-Indian female with lesser portfolios indicate bias; adverse inference aiding claim.	No enough evidence of racial/national bias; decisions within discretion.	Summary judgment denied on §1981/Title VII claims for Rajaravivarma; issues for jury given adverse inference.
Whether qualified immunity shields defendants			Qualified immunity not warranted at summary judgment; issues of discrimination undisposed; denial of immunity.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (reversal standard for summary judgment burden on movant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (higher standard for summary judgment; evidence in dispute must be genuine)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext analysis after prima facie case)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (pretext probed after prima facie case)
Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (spoliation requiring showings of duty, culpability, relevance)
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (duty to preserve and adverse inferences for spoliation)
Residential Funding v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (relevance standard for spoliation evidence to support claims)
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 249 F.R.D. 111 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (sanctions for spoliation available and caution on harshness)
In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 236 F.R.D. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (scope of control over documents for preservation)
Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2001) (discriminatory intent inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (comparators outside protected class support discrimination inference)
Stratton v. Dep’t for the Aging for N.Y., 132 F.3d 869 (2d Cir. 1997) (statistical evidence as indicia of discrimination)