Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago

Citations: 102 F. Supp. 3d 994; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52002; 2015 WL 1841437Docket: No. 12 C 828

Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois; April 21, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Joseph S. Roberts filed a lawsuit against Columbia College Chicago, Eliza Nichols, and Philippe Ravanas, alleging breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, defamation, and discrimination under several federal statutes, including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is currently before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which has been granted.

Roberts, a 56-year-old naturalized US citizen originally from India, served as a professor at Columbia from 1999 to 2011. His termination in 2011 prompted this lawsuit. Throughout his tenure, he taught in the Arts, Entertainment and Media Management (AEMM) Department and sought to create a custom economics textbook for his courses. After discovering no suitable single textbook for his students, he approached McGraw-Hill to publish "Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers," which included adapted chapters from existing textbooks. Despite his efforts, the book was released with numerous errors and omissions, leading to dissatisfaction among students and faculty. Roberts later attempted to revise the book but abandoned the project.

In 2007, Roberts chaired a search committee for a new dean for the School of Fine and Performing Arts. The committee’s unsuccessful search led to the appointment of Eliza Nichols, who had been recommended by Columbia administrators after a recent conference.

Roberts raised concerns about the appropriateness of hiring a dean without reopening the search process, but Nichols was appointed despite his objections. After completing her first term in 2010, Nichols was reappointed for a second term. Roberts then participated in a search for a chairperson of the AEMM department, which initially failed as the chosen candidate declined the position. Under pressure from Nichols, the search committee was compelled to recommend Philippe Ravanas as their second choice. Roberts expressed dissatisfaction with how Columbia managed this hiring process, mirroring his earlier concerns about Nichols.

Tensions arose between Roberts and Ravanas early in Ravanas's tenure, characterized by poor performance reviews from Ravanas and confrontational behavior regarding Roberts’s professional conduct. Ravanas allegedly sought negative information about Roberts and made derogatory remarks about older, tenured faculty not fitting his vision for a "young and hip" AEMM department, even removing Roberts's photo from the online directory. Additionally, Ravanas made inappropriate comments about Roberts's skin condition and disparaging remarks regarding Asians and Asian immigrants.

Alongside other tenured faculty, Roberts formally communicated concerns about Ravanas’s management style and decisions to both Ravanas and Columbia administration officials, including Provost Steve Kapelke and his successor, Louise Love. Concurrently, a lecturer named Nissan Wasfie accused Roberts of plagiarism regarding his book, "Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers," suggesting that large portions were copied from "Basic Economic Concepts." Upon investigation, it was found that several chapters of Roberts's book closely mirrored the content of the referenced text with minimal adjustments.

Ravanas prepared a memo alleging that Roberts plagiarized from Sichel and Eckstein, which he sent to Eliza Nichols in April 2011. Nichols informed the provost’s office and general counsel. After a meeting between Provost Love, Roberts, and five faculty members, Nichols met with Roberts on May 31, 2011. Their accounts of this meeting differ significantly. Nichols claims she attempted to discuss the memo with Roberts, who became confused and could not provide a coherent explanation. Roberts contends that Nichols accused him of plagiarism without specifics and pressured him to resign, offering a choice to resign within five minutes or face termination. He rejected the resignation and later received a dismissal notice from Provost Love on June 9, 2011, citing 'academic dishonesty' under his tenure agreement.

Columbia’s policy allows dismissal for cause, including professional incompetence and dishonesty. Roberts argues that the basis for his termination, occurring seven years after the alleged plagiarism, was a pretext for retaliation against him for his advocacy and discrimination based on race, national origin, age, and disability. He also claims defamation by Ravanas, who allegedly mischaracterized the reason for his termination. The defendants deny these allegations and assert that Roberts's termination was justified due to clear academic dishonesty. In his lawsuit, Roberts claims breach of contract, asserting that Columbia failed to conduct a proper investigation or provide an opportunity to respond to the allegations, arguing that the supposed dishonesty stemmed from a publisher’s error and did not warrant dismissal. The court's review at this stage focuses on whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact and whether the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, without weighing evidence or determining the truth of the claims.

Roberts asserts that McGraw-Hill assured him he could use non-McGraw-Hill materials in his book while they would manage all copyright and intellectual property issues. He provided McGraw-Hill with photocopies of relevant materials and expected proper references, which were not included. Additionally, he anticipated receiving a final proof of the book before publication, which did not occur; he only saw the final product when he purchased it, after his students had already done so. Roberts argues this lack of opportunity to correct reference omissions contributed to his job loss, which he believes was unjust. He cites the College's policy which states that, before dismissing a faculty member, attempts should be made to address the issue through less severe measures. He claims Columbia's decision to terminate him over an inadvertent citation error was inconsistent with this policy.

Defendants counter that the investigation and findings regarding Roberts's alleged plagiarism were justified, noting that eight of the nineteen chapters in his book were significantly copied without attribution, and he failed to take action to correct these errors after publication. They assert that Roberts’s claim of accidental citation errors does not negate Columbia's determination of academic dishonesty. Although the Statement does not explicitly define plagiarism, it is often assessed without regard to intent. Roberts allowed the errors to persist in a book for which he claimed authorship and continued to include it on his CV. Furthermore, Roberts claims that his termination lacked a fair process, constituting a breach of contract. Defendants argue that the contract allows the provost discretion in determining the appropriateness of investigations, and does not necessitate adherence to a standard of reasonableness. The Court agrees that Columbia is bound by an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under Illinois law.

Defendants argue that there is no evidence or allegations suggesting that Love acted in bad faith when she reviewed evidence regarding Roberts's alleged plagiarism. A comparison of Roberts's 2004 book with its 1974 source supports the conclusion of academic dishonesty, and Roberts fails to prove that Love, who made the termination decision, had any ulterior motives or acted unreasonably. Viewing the facts favorably toward Roberts does not demonstrate a breach of contract by Columbia in his termination. 

Regarding Roberts's claim of retaliatory discharge linked to his participation in faculty organizing activities, the court finds this claim preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), referencing the Beaird v. Miller’s Mutual Insurance Association case which established similar preemption. Even if not preempted, the claim would still fail as Roberts does not establish a causal link between his protected activities and his termination. Under Illinois law, to succeed in a retaliatory discharge claim, a clear connection must be shown, which Roberts does not provide. His assertion lacks elaboration, and the evidence does not support that his termination was due to his organizing efforts rather than substantiated accusations of plagiarism. Although some individuals may have wished for Roberts's departure, there is no indication that Love’s decision was influenced by anything other than her assessment of Roberts's conduct as a serious breach of academic integrity. The court concludes that Roberts's claims are based on unsupported assertions and irrelevant facts, granting summary judgment to the defendants on both claims.

Roberts alleges discrimination by Columbia under Title VII, Section 1981, the ADA, and the ADEA in Counts III, V, VII, and IX of his complaint. He argues that he has provided circumstantial evidence of discrimination, which includes ambiguous statements made by Chair Ravanas and evidence that Columbia's reason for his termination—plagiarism—was pretextual. The court clarifies that Ravanas did not directly terminate Roberts; rather, Love made the termination decision based on materials provided by Nichols. Since Ravanas's statements are unrelated to the termination decision, they are not indicative of a discriminatory motive. Even if Ravanas had been the final decision-maker, his vague comments regarding Asians, older faculty, and Roberts's medical condition qualify as "stray remarks" and do not suffice to establish discrimination.

Regarding the claim of pretext, Roberts asserts that plagiarism was not the true reason for his termination, referencing a past "book controversy" known within the AEMM department. He argues that since the issues with his book were known since 2004, they could not have been the basis for his 2011 firing. However, the evidence shows Love, who was unfamiliar with the "book controversy," acted on newly presented evidence of plagiarism, which she deemed a severe breach of academic integrity, leading to Roberts's termination.

Roberts' claims regarding his termination lack support, as evidence shows that the decision was made based on credible evidence of plagiarism rather than discriminatory motives. He argues that the investigation conducted by Love was insufficient and that she should have consulted him about the attribution errors prior to his dismissal. However, the court finds that even if the investigation was brief and the punishment severe, it does not support the idea that plagiarism was merely a pretext for his firing, especially given the substantial copying of another author’s work with minor alterations. Speculative claims of pretext are insufficient to warrant a jury trial. The court affirms that it does not assess the fairness of employment decisions but rather whether the employer's stated reasons are genuine and not discriminatory. Additionally, the court addresses Roberts' defamation claim against Ravanas, who allegedly stated that Roberts was terminated due to incompetence and dishonesty. The court rules that this statement constitutes a non-actionable opinion rather than a false statement of fact, aligning with Illinois law that distinguishes between actionable factual statements and non-actionable opinions. Therefore, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted for both the discrimination and defamation claims, as no genuine issues of material fact exist.

Ravanas's assertions regarding Roberts's incompetence and dishonesty lack sufficient detail to constitute actionable statements of fact, rendering them vague and non-actionable. Even if they were actionable, truth serves as an absolute defense to defamation, and it is substantially true that Roberts was terminated for "academic dishonesty," which was clearly stated in his termination letter. Consequently, Ravanas's comments about incompetence are mere opinion, while his claim about dishonesty is both opinion and a true statement, thereby failing to support a defamation claim. The court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim, effectively terminating the case.

Roberts's complaint includes a retaliatory discharge claim under Illinois law and additional claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and ADEA. However, Roberts acknowledges in his opposition brief that the case record does not support the claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and ADEA, opting to proceed without them, which the court interprets as voluntary dismissal of those claims. The defendants also assert that Roberts’s retaliatory discharge claim is flawed because he did not engage in protected organizing activities under a clearly mandated public policy. While the court finds that Roberts may be overextending the retaliatory discharge tort, it does not need to resolve this as the claim fails to establish causation. Roberts implied during his deposition that Ravanas and Nichols may have influenced his termination due to his opposition to their appointments, but this motive does not substantiate his claims.