Rahn v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University

Citations: 803 F.3d 285; 116 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1515; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16835; 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,404; 128 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 78; 2015 WL 5568452Docket: 14-2402

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; September 23, 2015; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Gregory E. Rahn and Genemetrix filed a lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University and several university officers, claiming discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, copyright infringement, and due process violations. The district court dismissed the due process claims with prejudice, a decision not contested in this appeal. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants regarding the racial discrimination, retaliation, and copyright infringement claims, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.

The appeal focuses on the racial discrimination and retaliation claims, specifically alleging reverse discrimination by the defendants in not hiring Rahn for a tenure-track assistant professor position due to his race. Rahn, who holds a PhD in Industrial Engineering, had been a visiting professor at NIU during the 2006-2007 academic year, while his wife, Regina, was a tenure-track assistant professor in the same department. When a tenure-track position opened, Rahn applied, and a search committee, which included Regina, evaluated the candidates.

At a committee meeting on March 5, 2007, Rahn received three votes from Regina, his teaching assistant, and another committee member, placing him among the top ten candidates. However, the hiring decision favored Dr. Gary Chen, who received four votes. Shortly after the meeting, on March 9, 2007, Dean Promod Vohra convened an emergency meeting to remove Regina from the committee due to the conflict of interest stemming from her relationship with an applicant, aligning with NIU Board policy prohibiting participation in personnel decisions involving immediate family members.

Rahn argues that the policy applies exclusively to the Board of Trustees, but the inclusion of faculty and administrative employees contradicts his claim, and he provides no supporting evidence. Coovert testified that during an emergency meeting, Vohra expressed dissatisfaction with Regina's involvement in selecting candidates, particularly questioning Moraga’s vote for Rahn. Vohra allegedly stated he would not hire a white man if qualified minority candidates were available. Regina corroborated this account, while Ghrayeb, Vohra, and Moraga denied making such statements. For summary judgment purposes, Rahn’s testimony is considered favorable. 

Krishnamurthi created an evaluation metric to structure candidate comparisons based on job requirements, allowing committee members to rank candidates numerically. The committee could provide feedback on the metric, which was ultimately used in candidate evaluation. Rahn claims this metric was designed to exclude him, but Coovert's testimony indicates it prioritized academic experience over industry experience, which does not support claims of racial bias. Coovert lacked personal knowledge regarding the metric's creation, and there is no evidence of discriminatory intent from Krishnamurthi or the committee. Rahn did not advance to the next stage of the hiring process, allowing Regina to rejoin the committee, which subsequently selected Chen, a non-white male, as the hire. 

Rahn filed a grievance against this decision, which was denied, leading him to pursue an EEOC complaint and this lawsuit, initially alleging race and gender discrimination but later narrowing it to race discrimination. To succeed under the direct method of proving discrimination, a plaintiff must present evidence—either direct or circumstantial—that suggests discrimination motivated the adverse employment action. Direct evidence includes clear admissions of discriminatory intent, often termed "smoking gun" evidence.

Rahn lacks direct evidence of racial discrimination in his hiring process. He claims that Vohra's statement about hiring a qualified minority candidate over a white one demonstrates that his race influenced the hiring decision. However, Vohra was not involved in eliminating Rahn from consideration; that decision was made by the search committee based on job-relevant criteria. Vohra only selected between candidates proposed by the committee, which did not include Rahn. Consequently, Vohra's statement cannot be considered direct evidence of discrimination.

Additionally, any circumstantial evidence Rahn presents does not meet the threshold required to overcome summary judgment. Rahn does not provide instances of discriminatory comments aimed at white candidates or evidence that the hiring rationale was a pretext for discrimination. The committee had already determined that Chen was more qualified than Rahn, a conclusion which Rahn fails to contest effectively. Despite extensive focus on unrelated allegations, Rahn did not address the argument that Chen's selection was based on superior qualifications. His testimony regarding his own qualifications did not extend to knowledge of Chen's qualifications, further undermining his position. The district court noted that Rahn waived this argument and ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants, affirming that they had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for hiring Chen.

Rahn's appeal fails to address the waiver argument related to the committee's determination that Chen was more qualified, which precludes him from claiming that this determination was a pretext for discrimination. Even with a prima facie case, Rahn could not overcome summary judgment due to the defendants presenting a legitimate reason for their decision based on qualifications, and Rahn waived any claim that this reason was pretextual. Additionally, Rahn's retaliation claim against NIU for alleged harassment and inadequate grievance investigation was also deemed waived by the district court because he did not substantively address NIU's arguments, aside from a brief, unsupported mention. On appeal, Rahn did not contest this waiver finding.

Regarding copyright claims, Rahn asserts two claims of infringement linked to ISYE 100 course notes developed by his colleague Regina Rahn while at NIU. Although Regina initially permitted Joe Bittorf to use the notes, she later revoked that permission, yet the notes continued to be used until Spring 2009. The dispute centers on whether her notification to NIU was adequate and whether ownership of the notes belonged to NIU or Regina, but the court found the copyright claim fundamentally flawed as Regina, not a plaintiff in this case, was the sole author of the notes. The district court had previously severed Regina from the suit, and the plaintiffs claimed the notes were co-authored by her and Gregory Rahn under Genemetrix. The court upheld that Regina was the sole author and that the notes were created within her employment scope. Rahn’s appeal argued that the district court exceeded its scope in summary judgment, but this was rejected as the court’s finding aligned with the record. Additionally, a related work, the Trifinity Six Sigma Series, was confirmed to be validly authored by Gregory and Regina Rahn and owned by Genemetrix.

The document discusses the relationship between the ISYE 100 course notes and 'Essentials for Manufacturing Systems,' a derivative work created by Gregory and Regina Rahn. The district court classified the ISYE 100 course notes as a derivative of the Essentials for Manufacturing Systems, which is itself derived from the Six Sigma Series. As Regina created the ISYE 100 course notes with authority from Genemetrix, she was deemed the copyright owner of those notes, referencing Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l Inc. The right to claim copyright in a derivative work arises by operation of law but can be modified by agreement.

On appeal, Rahn conflates the two derivative works but fails to provide evidence demonstrating that the ISYE 100 course notes are merely a copy of the Essentials for Manufacturing Systems. Some contents of the ISYE 100 course notes, such as student exercises, are not part of the Essentials for Manufacturing Systems. The plaintiffs contest the district court’s designation of the ISYE 100 course notes as a "second derivative" but do not substantiate this claim, relying instead on the presence of a copyright mark with a Genemetrix logo on the notes.

The court highlights the lack of clarity regarding the composition of these documents, criticizing the plaintiffs for not identifying any evidence showing they authored the ISYE 100 course notes. Initial claims made by the plaintiffs lack citation, and subsequent references do not provide adequate proof. The provided documents labeled as Essentials for Manufacturing Systems do not indicate authorship and appear to be cover pages distinct from the ISYE 100 course notes. During oral arguments, both parties struggled to identify the ISYE 100 course notes in the record, with the defendants indicating they could only find cover pages. The plaintiffs later pointed to three different exhibits that include a document named Essentials for Manufacturing Systems but do not demonstrate it as the ISYE 100 course notes. Overall, the record lacks both the full ISYE 100 course notes and the Essentials for Manufacturing Systems for comparison, and the plaintiffs have not claimed the two documents are identical.

The plaintiffs' failure to distinguish between relevant documents is critical, as the district court viewed them as separate. Even if the cited materials are incomplete ISYE 100 course notes, they lack full documentation, undermining the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs must clearly identify the work for copyright protection, but they have not done so, which could lead to summary judgment against them. Incomplete document identification hinders their arguments regarding authorship or copyright, particularly concerning pages attributing the work to Greg and Regina Rahn and Genemetrix. 

The only evidence suggesting joint authorship comes from emails by Regina, which lack formal support, such as depositions or affidavits, to confirm Rahn's co-authorship. Additionally, citations asserting that materials from Genemetrix were utilized do not substantiate claims of authorship or copyright infringement. Regina's affidavit does not link her to the authorship of the course notes, and other referenced communications fail to demonstrate any connection between the plaintiffs and the course notes, nor do they establish the use of copyrighted materials.

Donald Turk, the bookstore manager, indicated that royalties are paid for both copyrighted and uncopyrighted works, but a letter naming Regina as the sole author contradicts the claims of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Regina Rahn affirmed her sole authorship and the originality of the submitted materials, explicitly stating they contained no copyrighted content. Thus, Gregory Rahn and Genemetrix lack evidence of interest or authorship rights related to the course notes.

Regina confirmed in her deposition that the signature and representation on documents were hers, and plaintiffs have not provided evidence to challenge this assertion. The court noted that if plaintiffs possess a protectible interest in the ISYE 100 course notes, they failed to identify relevant evidence supporting this claim. The court emphasized it would not sift through extensive records to support the plaintiffs' case. It was established that Regina Rahn authored the ISYE 100 course notes and informed the bookstore that no copyrighted materials were included. As Rahn is not a party to the case, the court found no basis for the copyright claim concerning these notes, leading to the proper granting of summary judgment.

A separate copyright claim remains where Rahn alleges that defendants copied his 'Risk Management' PowerPoint presentation, which was prepared for Exelon engineers and derived from materials associated with the plaintiffs’ Six Sigma Series. In late 2006, Exelon sought NIU's assistance for risk management training, resulting in an agreement for a course to be taught by NIU. Rahn developed the presentation, but Exelon found it inadequate for their needs and decided not to hire Rahn for the course, which was instead taught by another professor. Rahn claims that the defendants' use of his presentation constitutes copyright infringement, yet the plaintiffs have not cited legal precedents to support their argument, focusing only on the district court's handling of certain affidavits.

Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their copyright claim by not identifying the relevant copyright law or specific violations by the defendants. Their arguments, which suggested coercion or improper distribution of a PowerPoint presentation, were dismissed by the district court as lacking support in the record. Furthermore, the plaintiffs waived their claim regarding the Exelon PowerPoint due to their failure to provide legal authority backing their argument, as established in relevant case law. The court emphasized that insufficiently developed arguments and unsupported factual assertions are subject to waiver. Consequently, the district court's decision was affirmed.