Khatri v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Dist. of Columbia

DARYAO S. KHATRI, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-2644 (RBW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

June 11, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff, Daryao S. Khatri, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action against the defendant, the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, asserting a claim of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e-17 ("Title VII"). See Complaint ("Compl.") at 1, ECF No. 1-1. Currently pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Def.'s Mot." or the "defendant's motion"), ECF No. 6. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,¹ the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the defendant's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the plaintiff's Complaint, unless otherwise specified. The plaintiff was a physics professor at the University of the District of Columbia (the "University") from September 1, 1973, until May 15, 2015, when "he was laid off[.]" See Compl. ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 15 (stating that "[b]efore his termination during the 2014[-20]15 academic year, [the plaintiff] was a tenure reserved-interest status faculty (full-professor rank) at the University"); Pl.'s Opp'n") at 8-9 (alleging that the plaintiff "was granted [r]eserved [i]nterest [s]tatus[,]" which is "an alternate term for [t]enure," "during the consolidation of three separate institutions . . . to form the University" (emphasis omitted)). The defendant is "charged with the responsibility of governing the University" and "possesses those powers necessary and convenient" to do so, "including the power to sue and be sued and to complain and defend in [the University's] name in [ ] court[.]" Compl. ¶ 2.

A. The Plaintiff's Disputes with the University's Administration Prior to His Termination

Between 1999 and 2014, the plaintiff, independently or as a member of faculty organizations, engaged in several disputes with the University's administration, including challenging certain University hiring decisions and filing several Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaints. See id. ¶¶ 9-26. First, on May 3, 1999, the plaintiff "challenged [what he perceived to be] an illegal hiring practice" when "[t]he administration appointed Dr. Beverly Anderson[,]" id. ¶ 17, as a provost, see Pl.'s Opp'n at 13,² "without a formal search[,] as [was] required by the [defendant's] policies" ("the plaintiff's challenge to Dr.Anderson's appointment"), Compl. ¶ 17. Thereafter, in "2000 and 2005[,]" the plaintiff "filed EEO complaints with [the University's human resources office] and [the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").]" Id. ¶ 21. "During the 2007[-]2008 academic year, [the plaintiff raised a] challenge[]" when "Graeme Baxter[, who] was appointed as an 'acting' provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs[,] . . . unilaterally removed the title 'acting' from her position" ("the plaintiff's challenge to Baxter's title change"). Id. ¶ 18.

On August 18, 2014, the plaintiff received a termination letter from the University "stat[ing] that [the plaintiff's] employment with the [U]niversity w[ould] end on May 15, 2015." Id., Exhibit ("Ex.") 9 (Narrative of the EEO Complaint by Dr. Daryao S. Khatri ("Oct. 2014 EEO Compl.")) at 1. "Upon learning of [his] termination letter, [the plaintiff] asked questions of a number of other faculty members who might have received similar letters." Id., Ex. 9 (Oct. 2014 EEO Compl.) at 1. The plaintiff alleges that "[m]ost of the faculty who received [termination letters we]re" (1) "above the age of [sixty or sixty-five;]" (2) "foreign[-]born[;]" (3) "of color[;]" (4) "of different races[;]" and (5) "in [science, technology, engineering, or mathematics] disciplines[.]" Id., Ex. 9 (Oct. 2014 EEO Compl.) at 1.

On October 7, 2014, "[t]he Academic Senate Policies and Procedures Committee[ ("Faculty Senate"),³ of which the defendant was a member,] . . . passed [a] motion . . . request[ing that] the [P]resident's Office and the [defendant] [ ] rescind the permanent appointment of the [College of Arts and Sciences] dean" by October 31, 2014 ("the October 2014 Faculty Senate resolution"). Id. ¶ 19; see also id., Ex. 7 (Approved Academic SenateMotion # 2 (Oct. 7, 2014)) at 1. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff "filed an EEO complaint with [the University's human resources office's] EEO Officer" ("the plaintiff's October 2014 EEO complaint"). Id. ¶ 22; see id., Ex. 9 (Oct. 2014 EEO Compl.) at 1; see also id., Ex. 10 (Letter from W. Brian Ramsay, EO Officer, Univ. of Dist. of Columbia Off. of Hum. Res., to Dr. Daryao S. Khatri (Dec. 19, 2014) ("Ramsay Letter")) at 1. The plaintiff's October 2014 EEO complaint alleged that terminations by the University followed a pattern whereby "[m]ost of the faculty who received [termination] notices [were] foreign[-]born[,] . . . of color[,] . . . [and] of different races." Id., Ex. 9 (Oct. 2014 EEO Compl.) at 1.

On or around November 14, 2014, the University's Faculty Association ("Faculty Association"), an entity that represents the University's full-time faculty "for collective[-]bargaining purposes[,]" id. ¶ 4, "passed a '[n]o-confidence' motion in the Acting Provost, Dr. Rachael Petty" ("the November 2014 no-confidence motion"), id. ¶ 20. "Because [the plaintiff had been] asked by the leadership of the Faculty Senate and [the Faculty Association] to highlight the events that [we]re taking place at the [University], Dr. Petty appeared to hold [the plaintiff] responsible for" the no-confidence motion. Id.

On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a grievance "with the . . . Faculty Association" regarding the "decision of Professor Griffin, [the] Division Director for Math and Engineering, not to assign [the plaintiff] two mathematics courses[.]" Id., Ex. 12 (Letter from Marilyn Hamilton, Acting Dean, Off. of Acad. Affs. (Nov. 26, 2014) ("Hamilton Letter")) at 1. The plaintiff claimed that Professor Griffin had violated a provision in the Sixth Master Agreement, see id., Ex. 12 (Hamilton Letter) at 1, between the University and the Faculty Association, see id. ¶ 2, stating that "[q]ualified faculty in the department may request to be assigned one [ ] course for which a part-time faculty appointment would have to be made[,]" and that "[t]he Universityhas discretion whether to grant any such request, although it may not deny such a request for arbitrary and capricious reasons[,]" id., Ex. 12 (Hamilton Letter) at 1. On November 26, 2014, the Acting Dean of the Office of Academic Affairs informed the plaintiff that she "concur[red] with [Professor Griffin's] decision" because (1) the plaintiff was "not a member of the mathematics department at the University[,]" and therefore the provision did not apply to the plaintiff, and (2) the provision "indicates that such assignments are made at the discretion of the University" and "Professor Griffin [had] determined not to grant [the plaintiff's] request because [the plaintiff] did not have a qualifying degree in [mathematics]." Id., Ex. 12 (Hamilton Letter) at 2 (emphasis omitted).

On December 19, 2014, the plaintiff was informed that the University's human resources office "completed its investigation into [a] complaint of discrimination that [he] filed against Dr. [ ] Petty." Id., Ex. 10 (Ramsay Letter) at 1. And, on January 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed another EEO complaint with the District of Columbia's Office of Human Rights ("the January 2015 EEO complaint").⁴ See id. ¶ 24; id., Ex. 11 (Letter from Albert Santiago, Hum. Rts. Officer, to Dr. Daryao S. Khatri (Jan. 16, 2015) ("Santiago Letter")) at 1.

B. The Plaintiff's Disputes with the University's Administration After His Termination

Following his termination from his full-time faculty position in May 2015, the plaintiff continued to teach "no more than two classes per semester in physics on an adjunct basis." Id. ¶ 31. Thereafter, on November 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed another EEO complaint ("the plaintiff's November 2018 EEO complaint") with the University's human resources office EEOofficer, alleging that he "ha[d] been retaliated against in teaching assignments because of [his] participat[ion] in the discrimination complaints process and opposi[tion to] unlawful employment practice[s]." Id., Ex. 1 (Letter from Dr. Daryao S. Khatri to Evola Bates, Interim EEO/Compliance Officer, Univ. of the District of Columbia (Nov. 27, 2018) ("Nov. 2018 EEO Compl.")) at 2; see also id., Ex. 4 (Exit Letter - Daryao Khatri (May 16, 2019) ("Bates May 2019 Letter")) at 1. On December 15, 2018, the plaintiff amended his November 2018 EEO complaint to "also include that [he had] been retaliated against" in not being "hir[ed] back in [his] former position because the [U]niversity appear[ed] to have hired back a number of faculty members whose positions were also terminated." Id., Ex. 2 (E-mail from Dr. Daryao Khatri to Evola Bates (Dec. 15, 2018, 6:20 p.m.)) at 1. After reviewing the November 2018 EEO complaint, the University "concluded [on May 16, 2019,] that there [was] not sufficient evidence to support a violation of the University's Anti-Harassment and Discrimination policy under the 'more likely than not' standard set by that policy." Id., Ex. 4 (Bates May 2019 Letter), at 1.

On June 6, 2019, the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the District of Columbia's Office of Human Rights and the EEOC, to which he attached his November 2018 EEO complaint. See id., Ex. 5 (Charge of Discrimination (June 6, 2019) ("May 2019 EEO Compl.")) at 1, 3. On July 3, 2019, the EEOC determined that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishe[d a] violation of the statutes." Id. ¶ 13.

C. The Procedural History of This Case

On July 31, 2019, the plaintiff initiated this civil action in the Superior Court of...