Ragozzine v. Youngstown State University, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1051

Background

Frank Ragozzine was hired as a tenure-track assistant professor at Youngstown State University (YSU) in 2006 after relinquishing tenure at another institution; he was on a five-year clock and received a one-year postponement of review in August 2011 due to family health issues.
Ragozzine applied for tenure in fall 2012; department tenured faculty votes were officially 4–4, with one sabbatical faculty member (Coldren) viewing materials and unofficially opposing; Chair Giorgetti recommended denial, Dean Furnish and Provost Khawaja concurred, and President Anderson denied tenure after review and after the Tenure Denial Review Committee (TDRC) — composed of outside faculty — unanimously recommended award.
The Department and administrators cited deficiencies in scholarship (timing, quantity, and quality of publications; concentration of publications during the extension year) and lack of demonstrated promise as the basis for denial; teaching evaluations were generally favorable.
Ragozzine filed suit alleging (1) Title VII sex discrimination (reverse discrimination, male) against YSU, (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (due process and equal protection) against Chair Giorgetti and President Anderson, and (3) FMLA interference/retaliation against YSU for allegedly using his family-leave/extension as a negative factor.
At summary judgment, the court found (a) Ragozzine failed to show he provided adequate notice or actually took FMLA leave and therefore could not prove interference or retaliation; (b) YSU advanced legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (scholarship concerns) for denying tenure and Ragozzine failed to show pretext, so Title VII reverse-discrimination claim failed; and (c) § 1983 claims failed because no constitutional violation was shown and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Judgment for Defendants granted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA claim — interference vs. retaliation: did YSU use Ragozzine’s leave/extension against him?	Ragozzine: his conversations about family illness and Aug. 2, 2011 postponement letter put YSU on notice of FMLA-protected intermittent leave and YSU used that against him.	YSU: he never requested FMLA leave, did not give adequate notice, and did not take unpaid leave; the postponement sought "stop the clock," not leave.	Court: No FMLA protected activity or adequate notice shown; summary judgment for YSU on both interference and retaliation theories.
Title VII reverse sex-discrimination: did YSU deny tenure because Ragozzine is male?	Ragozzine: female comparator received tenure; female decisionmakers and alleged statements demonstrate discrimination; argues TDRC finding was ignored.	YSU: denial based on nondiscriminatory, documented scholarship concerns and lack of promise; legitimate reasons articulated.	Court: Even assuming prima facie case, YSU proved legitimate reasons and Ragozzine failed to show pretext; Title VII claim fails.
Procedural due process (§1983): was Ragozzine denied a fair tenure process?	Ragozzine: Chair counted an ineligible faculty member’s unofficial vote and TDRC appeal was a sham; Anderson failed to investigate independently or follow TDRC.	Defendants: CBA-governed procedures followed; Chair disclosed Coldren’s unofficial vote; Anderson reviewed records, consulted staff, and considered TDRC but reasonably credited department recommendations.	Court: Process afforded satisfied minimal impartial inquiry; no procedural due process violation; summary judgment for defendants.
Substantive due process and equal protection (§1983): arbitrary/capricious denial or discrimination?	Ragozzine: denial was arbitrary, and equal protection violated given alleged discrimination.	Defendants: decision rested on conventional academic judgments about scholarship; not a substantial departure from academic norms.	Court: No evidence of discrimination or decision so extreme to violate substantive due process; claims fail and defendants entitled to qualified immunity.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (establishes summary judgment burden-shifting principle)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., 681 F.3d 274 (elements of FMLA retaliation claim)
Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co., 503 F.3d 441 (elements of FMLA interference claim)
Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (notice requirement for FMLA leave)
Purisch v. Tennessee Technological Univ., 76 F.3d 1414 (property interest in fair tenure review; due process standard)
Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (review of academic decisions; courts defer unless decision departs from academic norms)
Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317 (sex-based tenure denial can support substantive due process violation if proven)