Rangesan Narayanan v. Board of Regents of Nevada System of Higher Education
3:11-cv-00744
| D. Nev. | Mar 3, 2014Background
- Narayanan and Fernandez are Nevada residents laid off from UNR amid 2010 curricular review and budget cuts; Johnson was UNR Provost/Executive VP overseeing program reviews; CABNR reorganized, resulting in elimination of Resource Economics and Animal Biotechnology and reassignment of Fernandez and Narayanan; some tenured/tenure-track and administrative staff were retained in other departments; first budget cut round (2009) reduced UNR funding without laying off tenured faculty; second cut (2010) triggered more drastic reductions and lay-offs; NSHE Code provisions govern tenure, reassignment, and continued employment where possible; Fernández’s and Narayanan’s tenure homes and administrative roles were slated for elimination with no tenured positions available elsewhere; plaintiffs filed Title VII and §1983 national origin claims and breach of contract claims, all but national origin discrimination claims dismissed prior to summary judgment, leaving surviving national origin and contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for national origin discrimination | Narayanan/Fernandez show inference via comparators | No similarly situated comparators; no inference of discrimination | Plaintiffs failed to show a prima facie case |
| Were comparators similarly situated in all material respects | Several non-US-born individuals retained; reassignments show bias | Comparators not similarly situated; different positions and circumstances | No valid similarly situated comparators; no inference of discrimination |
| Continuing need for plaintiffs' skills supports pretext | UNR retained others with similar skills in surviving programs | No one could be retained without displacing others; no ongoing need for plaintiffs’ prior roles | No continuing need established; pretext not shown |
| Non-discriminatory reasons for layoffs and pretext | Statistical/retention data suggest bias | Budget cuts and curricular review were nondiscriminatory; reasons credible | Nondiscriminatory reasons sufficiently supported; no pretext shown |
| Breach of contract linked to discrimination | Discrimination invalidates contract actions | Dismissal of discrimination defeats contract claim | Grant summary judgment on breach of contract to the extent premised on discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes the prima facie framework for disparate treatment)
- St. Mary’s Honor Cntr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (burden shifting after prima facie showing; strict standard for retaliation)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (burden of production; not proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Anthoine v. No. Cent. Cntys. Consortium, 605 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas to Title VII and §1983 claims)
- Vasquez v. Cnty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (similarly situated concept in discrimination in context of retention)