Vasudevan v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund
706 F. App'x 147
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vasudevan, an Indian-born tenure-track assistant professor at Tulane, received an unfavorable third-year review for lack of publications and had a multi-year publication gap.
- Tulane’s multi-step tenure process (department, school committee, dean, provost) culminated in Provost Bernstein denying tenure in August 2014, citing insufficient research productivity.
- Vasudevan filed internal grievances alleging discrimination; investigations found no evidence of discrimination.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in January 2017. The district court granted multiple extensions; Vasudevan repeatedly missed filing deadlines and never electronically filed her opposition (it was hand-delivered late and is not in the record).
- The district court struck the untimely opposition, treated the summary-judgment motion as unopposed, and granted summary judgment to defendants on discrimination, retaliation, and § 1985(3) conspiracy claims. Vasudevan’s Rule 59(e) motion was denied; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking Vasudevan’s untimely opposition was an abuse of discretion | Missed filing was excusable; court should have accepted late opposition or considered merits | Counsel’s repeated failures and noncompliance justified striking; no excusable neglect | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in striking the untimely opposition |
| Whether denial of reconsideration (Rule 59(e)) was an abuse of discretion | Reconsideration justified by circumstances of late filing and request to file opposition | No manifest error or newly discovered evidence; delay circumstances were known and not excusable | Court affirmed denial: no manifest error and remedy is extraordinary |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on discrimination and retaliation claims given the record | Tenure denial was discriminatory and delays in grievance investigation were retaliatory | Non-discriminatory reason (lack of publications) supported decision; no evidence delays were retaliatory | Court affirmed summary judgment: plaintiff failed to establish prima facie discrimination or rebut defendants’ legitimate reason; no retaliation evidence |
| Whether § 1985(3) conspiracy claim survived summary judgment | Bernstein and Altiero conspired to impede grievance proceedings and conceal reviewers’ identities | No evidence of an agreement or concerted action required for § 1985(3) liability | Court affirmed dismissal: no evidence of an agreement between defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for striking filings)
- Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2006) (excusable neglect standard for untimely filings)
- Silvercreek Mgmt., Inc. v. Banc of Am. Secs., LLC, 534 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2008) (parties accountable for counsel’s omissions)
- Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) requires manifest error or new evidence)
- Luig v. N. Bay Enters., Inc., 817 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) denials)
- Wiltz v. Bayer CropScience, Ltd. P’ship, 645 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment review de novo)
- Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775 (5th Cir. 1997) (elements of prima facie case for tenure discrimination)
- Green v. State Bar of Tex., 27 F.3d 1083 (5th Cir. 1994) (§ 1985(3) conspiracy requires agreement)