Sam Han v. University of Dayton
541 F. App'x 622
6th Cir.2013Background
- Han, an Asian-American male, was hired in Aug 2008 as a non-tenured faculty member at UD Law to teach patent law.
- PRT Committee reviewed Han’s professional development; Jan 2011 evaluation was poor, leading to non-renewal of his 2012 contract.
- Han alleges race and gender discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII, and Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02.
- District court dismissed Title VII claims as time-barred and declined to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims, which remained tied to a pending state case.
- Plaintiff contends a white adjunct was hired for one class after his contract non-renewal; he fails to plead facts showing discriminatory causation.
- Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint invoked Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard; court found no plausible inference of discrimination from the facts pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Han plausibly pleaded race/gender discrimination | Han asserts discrimination by the PRT committee | Defendants contend pleadings lack facts showing discriminatory motive | Claims not plausibly alleged; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Title VII/§1981 claims were timely | Discovery of discriminatory intent extended the period | Limitations began when final decision communicated (May 11, 2011) | Title VII claims time-barred; limitations began May 11, 2011 |
| Whether individual defendants can be liable under Title VII/§4112.02 | Individual PRT members/Dean McGreal liable | Title VII does not impose liability on non-employer individuals; §4112.02 allows supervisor liability | No Title VII liability for individuals; §4112.02 liability depends on supervisory status; dismissed against individuals |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed under Twombly/Iqbal | Pleadings contain enough facts to show discrimination | Pleadings insufficient to show plausible discrimination | Plausibility standard not met; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires plausibility, not mere possibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) (intentional discrimination under §1981)
- EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 249 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2001) (limitations period runs when final employment decision communicated)
- Amini v. Oberlin College, 259 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001) (start of limitations period upon communication of final decision)
- Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012) (pleading must set forth factual content showing entitlement to relief)
- Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 1997) (supervisors not liable under Title VII)