Otis Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University
870 F.3d 562
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Otis Grant, a tenured IUSB professor (1999–2011), was investigated after student complaints about classroom conduct and procedural irregularities.
- University administrators discovered multiple discrepancies in Grant’s CV and application materials; an independent firm (Klink) reported many credentials were vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated.
- Chancellor Uma Reck concluded Grant committed "serious personal and professional misconduct" and terminated him effective December 31, 2011; Grant pursued internal appeals but ultimately opted out of a faculty hearing.
- Grant sued the University, trustees, and administrators asserting 26 claims; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the claims at issue after finding Grant failed to present admissible evidence creating material factual disputes.
- On appeal Grant (African American) challenged summary judgment on five claims: race discrimination, retaliation, procedural due process deprivation, defamation (South Bend Tribune), and breach of an employment contract created by the handbook.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, found Grant failed to produce specific admissible evidence to create triable issues on any of the five claims, and affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Grant argues termination was racially motivated and that Guillaume’s alleged bias influenced Reck (cat’s paw theory) | Termination was based on Klink’s findings of CV misrepresentations and Reck honestly believed misconduct justified dismissal; no evidence of racial animus affecting decision | Affirmed: no admissible evidence of discriminatory motive or that Reck was a cat’s paw |
| Retaliation | Grant claims he was fired in retaliation for filing affirmative action complaints | Defendants show legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (misrepresentation of credentials) and no evidence of pretext or causal link | Affirmed: no evidence of retaliation or pretext |
| Procedural due process (§ 1983) | Grant contends IUSB did not follow handbook procedures and denied meaningful process | Defendants show notice, multiple written responses, opportunity to be heard, independent investigation, and that Grant voluntarily ended post-termination hearing process | Affirmed: pre-termination and overall process met constitutional minimums |
| Defamation (South Bend Tribune) | Grant asserts Tribune statements were false and defamatory | Defendants note Grant failed to point to specific false statements or produce evidence of falsity | Affirmed: Grant failed to identify specific falsity or admissible supporting evidence |
| Breach of contract (handbook) | Grant claims handbook created enforceable contractual rights that were breached by not following its procedures | Defendants point to explicit handbook disclaimer that it creates no contractual rights; Grant produced no evidence overcoming the disclaimer | Affirmed: no contract based on handbook; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Poullard v. McDonald, 829 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)
- Nichols v. Michigan City Plant Planning Dep’t, 755 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2014) (cat’s paw and requirements to show subordinate’s discriminatory animus)
- Packer v. Tr. of Indiana Univ. Sch. of Med., 800 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (local-rule compliance and summary judgment citation requirements)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enter. Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (evidence analysis in discrimination cases; decline of strict direct/indirect evidence dichotomy)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (Mathews balancing test for due process)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (property interest and pretermination process requirements)
- Liu v. Cook Cnty., 817 F.3d 307 (7th Cir. 2016) (employer’s honest belief standard in pretext analysis)