Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago

Citations: 821 F.3d 855; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8445; 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,548; 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 77; 2016 WL 2641968Docket: No. 15-2079

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; May 6, 2016; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Columbia College Chicago terminated Professor Joseph Roberts after discovering he plagiarized material for a textbook he authored in 2004. Roberts filed a lawsuit against the college and faculty members, alleging multiple theories of recovery. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, leading Roberts to appeal specifically on claims of breach of contract and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The background reveals that Roberts was hired in 1999, achieved tenure in 2003, and began creating a custom economics textbook due to a perceived lack of suitable materials. Collaborating with colleague Clark Greene and graduate students, he compiled content from three existing textbooks into "Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers." The final product, published by McGraw-Hill, prominently featured material from two textbooks while omitting acknowledgment of a third. Roberts did not receive a final proof before publication and first saw the completed book through his students. Upon review, he noted significant errors and omissions, including the lack of citations for the third textbook, which he recognized as a serious issue. Following these discoveries, Roberts and colleagues ultimately chose not to use the textbook due to its errors and high cost. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

Roberts did not pursue corrections for the omissions in the original textbook, "Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers." In late 2005 or early 2006, he sought help from graduate student Nissan Wasfie to update the textbook, but the project failed due to a financial dispute between them. Consequently, the original publication remained uncorrected. Roberts included the textbook in his CV updates in 2009 and 2011. 

In 2010, while serving on a search committee for the AEMM Department Chairperson, Roberts and the committee recommended a candidate who declined due to employment terms. Dean Eliza Nichols subsequently pressured the committee to approve Philippe Ravanas, who was viewed by Roberts as a "reluctant second choice." Tension arose between Roberts and Ravanas after his appointment, with Ravanas expressing that older faculty members, including Roberts, did not fit his vision for a "young and hip" department image. Ravanas removed Roberts' photo from the online directory and two tenured professors testified to Ravanas' hostility toward older faculty.

Ravanas also questioned Roberts about his compensation and affiliations, including a cellphone allowance and discrepancies in professional membership fees and credentials. Roberts promised to rectify the misrepresented information on various websites.

In 2004, Wasfie suspected Roberts of plagiarism regarding the textbook after observing graduate students typing from texts in Roberts' office. After developing a brain tumor in 2010, Wasfie took leave to recover and ultimately decided to investigate Roberts' potential plagiarism, comparing his textbook to "Basic Economic Concepts" by Sichel and Eckstein.

In mid-March 2011, Wasfie reported to Ravanas that a substantial portion of Roberts' textbook, "Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers," contained unattributed material. He provided Ravanas with Roberts' textbook and identified unattributed sections from Sichel and Eckstein’s "Basic Economic Concepts." Roberts later testified that he had previously informed Wasfie of this reference issue when seeking assistance for updating the textbook, and he speculated that someone might have prompted Wasfie to report him, although he had no evidence to support this. After Wasfie’s disclosure, Ravanas analyzed Roberts’ work and determined that eight chapters were largely derived from Sichel and Eckstein, totaling about 10,000 unattributed words. Ravanas documented his findings in a memorandum, which he sent to Nichols in early April 2011. Nichols, upon reviewing the memorandum and the textbooks, also concluded that plagiarism had occurred and reported her findings to senior academic officials.

During this period, Roberts and other faculty members were raising grievances against Ravanas' leadership. On May 2, 2011, they formally complained against him. Following a meeting with Louise Love, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Roberts met with Nichols, where accounts differ: Roberts claims Nichols accused him of plagiarism and pressured him to resign without allowing him to defend himself; Nichols contends that she asked Roberts to address Ravanas’ allegations, but he was unable to engage with the content. Both parties agree that Roberts later informed Nichols he would not resign.

In June 2011, Love became interim provost and learned of the plagiarism allegations against Roberts. After reviewing the materials and consulting with Nichols, she found substantial plagiarism in Roberts’ textbook. Love did not interview Roberts, believing the evidence was conclusive, and asserted that responsibility for the material rested with the author. Ultimately, she made the decision to terminate Roberts' employment.

Columbia University terminated Roberts' employment on June 9, 2011, due to egregious academic dishonesty involving plagiarism in his book, "Economics for Arts Entrepreneurs and Managers." The termination letter indicated that his actions could harm Columbia's reputation and concluded with a suspension without pay pending an optional internal review. Roberts did not pursue this review, believing it futile due to his prior experiences with the internal review panel (ERC), which had diminished oversight powers. On February 6, 2012, he filed a civil lawsuit against Columbia and individuals associated with the university, claiming breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, defamation, and discrimination under multiple statutes, including Title VII and the ADEA. All defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted on April 21, 2015. Roberts appealed, focusing on the breach of contract and ADEA claims, with Columbia as the sole appellee. The appellate court reviews the summary judgment de novo, considering facts favorably to Roberts. Columbia contends that the Statement of Policy restricts judicial review to the ERC process, arguing that the word "solely" in the policy prevents judicial examination of the termination decision.

Columbia did not present the argument that the Statement of Policy barred judicial review to the district court, instead asserting that Roberts needed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Consequently, Columbia has waived any claim that the Statement of Policy precludes judicial review. Even if this argument were preserved, the Statement of Policy does not prevent judicial review of Roberts’ claims. There is no binding authority indicating that a private university can contractually limit judicial review regarding the dismissal of a tenured professor. While courts typically refrain from reviewing tenure decisions, it remains ambiguous whether such limitations can exist for private institutions. The case of McConnell v. Howard University illustrates that a university's policy cannot eliminate judicial review of decisions affecting tenured faculty, as doing so would undermine the substantive rights associated with tenure. The language in Columbia's Statement of Policy allows terminated professors to seek review through specified internal procedures but does not preclude judicial review. Interpreting the Statement of Policy as barring court challenges would render tenure meaningless. Therefore, since Columbia waived its argument and the Statement of Policy allows for judicial review, Roberts' breach of contract complaint is properly before the court, warranting a review of the claim's merits.

Illinois law governs Roberts' breach of contract claim against Columbia. To establish a breach, a plaintiff must prove: 1) a valid contract, 2) substantial performance, 3) a breach by the defendant, and 4) resulting damages. The Statement of Policy, acknowledged by both parties as a contract, secures Roberts' tenure rights. Roberts asserts Columbia breached the contract by failing to conduct an appropriate investigation into plagiarism and by not imposing lesser sanctions.

Regarding the investigation, the Statement of Policy allows the Provost/Senior Vice President discretion in conducting investigations. Roberts contends Love did not exercise her discretion in good faith, arguing that she failed to determine whether his plagiarism was intentional. However, the analysis cites Seitz-Partridge v. Loyola University Chicago, which determined intent was not a required element in defining plagiarism according to the relevant student handbook. Roberts cannot identify any definition of plagiarism in the Statement of Policy that includes intent, making the question of his intent irrelevant.

Roberts also claims Love's investigation lacked good faith because she did not consider his efforts to address the plagiarism. Despite his claims of corrective actions, he failed to remove the plagiarized textbook from his curriculum vitae for years. The key issue is not the thoroughness of the investigation but whether Love acted in good faith in determining an appropriate investigation. With documented evidence of serious plagiarism, Love made a reasonable decision that sufficed for her investigation, and Roberts did not provide evidence of her bad faith. Therefore, Columbia did not breach the Statement of Policy.

Roberts contends that Columbia violated its Statement of Policy by failing to impose less severe sanctions for his misconduct. The policy states that while termination for cause is permissible, the College should first attempt to rectify the conduct through lesser actions unless such actions are inappropriate due to the nature of the misconduct. Plagiarism is deemed a serious offense in academia, with Roberts acknowledging its gravity. Consequently, it was reasonable for Love to determine that Roberts’ plagiarism warranted termination without lesser sanctions, thus not breaching the policy.

Additionally, Roberts alleges that his termination was discriminatory based on age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Under the ADEA, a plaintiff can demonstrate discrimination through either direct evidence or a circumstantial "convincing mosaic." Roberts has opted for the direct method but has not provided evidence of any age-related animus from Love, who made the termination decision. He attempts to invoke a "cat’s paw" theory, arguing that Ravanas’ alleged age bias could be attributed to Love due to Ravanas’ role in the termination. However, to succeed under this theory, Roberts must show that Love's decision was significantly influenced by Ravanas' prejudice, which he has failed to do, as there is no evidence of manipulation by Ravanas in Love’s decision-making process.

In Woods v. City of Berwyn, the court clarified that following the Supreme Court's decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the requirement for a subordinate with discriminatory intent to be the sole influence on a decision-maker has been relaxed. However, the possibility remains that if the subordinate's bias is too distant from the decision-maker, the cat’s paw liability may not apply. Specifically, if the ultimate decision-maker independently verifies the justification for an adverse action without solely relying on a biased subordinate's recommendation, the employer may not be held liable. 

In this case, Love conducted a thorough investigation concerning Roberts’ alleged plagiarism, independently assessing primary sources and consulting with Nichols, thus demonstrating a meaningful and independent inquiry. Roberts did not dispute the accuracy of the findings in the memorandum prepared by Ravanas, which he admitted largely reflected the truth. There was no evidence that other tenured professors faced similar consequences for plagiarism, undermining the claim of age discrimination influencing Love’s decision. 

Roberts attempted to argue that Ravanas’ memorandum initiated the termination process; however, the original charge of plagiarism came from Wasfie, who conducted his own investigation rather than relying solely on Wasfie’s claims. As a result, Roberts’ Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims could not withstand summary judgment. 

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting Roberts' claims that it improperly resolved material disputes or misjudged credibility. The court noted that under de novo review, Roberts could reassert arguments regarding factual interpretations favoring him. Columbia’s argument regarding the necessity of seeking ERC review prior to judicial review was deemed waived as it was not raised in the brief. Lastly, Roberts' reliance on the unpublished district court case Lerman v. Turner was dismissed, as it holds no binding precedent in this context.