Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago
821 F.3d 855
7th Cir.2016Background
- Joseph Roberts, a tenured Columbia College Chicago professor, authored a 2004 custom textbook that incorporated substantial unattributed text from existing textbooks; one work (Sichel & Eckstein) was omitted from the book’s citations entirely.
- Columbia faculty and students noticed the unattributed material; graduate student Nissan Wasfie later investigated (2010–2011), compared the books, and reported the findings to department chair Philippe Ravanas.
- Ravanas and Dean Eliza Nichols independently reviewed the comparisons and produced memoranda concluding substantial plagiarism; Interim Provost Louise Love also reviewed the materials and decided to terminate Roberts for academic dishonesty in June 2011.
- The Statement of Policy (Columbia’s faculty handbook) provided an internal ERC review process for terminated faculty; Columbia initially argued Roberts had to exhaust internal remedies and later raised (on appeal) that the handbook precluded judicial review entirely.
- Roberts sued for breach of contract and age discrimination under the ADEA, among other claims; the district court granted summary judgment to Columbia, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed as to breach of contract and ADEA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Statement of Policy precludes judicial review of the termination merits | Roberts: contract does not bar judicial review; ERC is an internal procedure but not the exclusive remedy in court | Columbia: handbook limits challenges to the ERC process and thus forecloses judicial review of the merits | Court: Columbia waived the preclusion argument; on the merits the handbook does not bar judicial review (McConnell persuasive) — Roberts may sue in court |
| Whether Love’s investigation breached the contract by being inappropriate / in bad faith | Roberts: Love failed to investigate intent and ignored evidence of efforts to remedy errors; discretion had to be exercised in good faith | Columbia: Statement grants discretion to determine an appropriate investigation; Love compared primary sources and relied on independent review | Court: No breach — Love conducted a reasonable, good-faith investigation; intent was not a required element |
| Whether Columbia breached the contract by not using lesser sanctions before dismissal | Roberts: handbook requires attempting less severe remedial action in ordinary circumstances | Columbia: plagiarism is a grave academic offense and falls outside “ordinary circumstances,” justifying immediate dismissal | Court: No breach — plagiarism’s seriousness made dismissal appropriate; lesser sanctions were not required |
| Whether termination violated the ADEA via a cat’s-paw theory imputing Ravanas’ age bias to Love | Roberts: Ravanas’ comments and affidavits show age animus that drove the termination through his reports | Columbia: Love conducted an independent, meaningful investigation and was not decisively influenced by Ravanas | Court: No ADEA liability — Love’s independent review broke any causal chain; no evidence Ravanas decisively influenced the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnell v. Howard Univ., 818 F.2d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (contract language making university decision “final” does not preclude judicial review and would render tenure illusory)
- Seitz-Partridge v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 987 N.E.2d 34 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (university plagiarism policy did not hinge on intent; discovery record need not show intent to sustain plagiarism finding)
- Blasdel v. Northwestern Univ., 687 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussing deference and limits when courts review academic decisions)
- Korf v. Ball State Univ., 726 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir. 1984) (university may reasonably interpret ethical rules to justify dismissal based on serious misconduct)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2011) (clarifies subordinate-caused bias and "cat’s paw" liability principles)
- Woods v. City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2015) (post-Staub discussion: unbiased decision-maker’s independent investigation can break causal chain of subordinate’s bias)