Al-Maqablh v. Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Med.

ALI AL-MAQABLH, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-531

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Dated: November 5, 2013

BECKWITH, J.

BOWMAN, M.J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Ali Al-Maqablh, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine ("the University"), alleging violations of employment discrimination via 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) ("Title VII"), 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Rehabilitation Act"). Plaintiff's complaint arises from his termination from the University's graduate program on June 19, 2009. This matter is now before the undersigned on the University's motion for summary judgment, including proposed undisputed facts and the parties' responsive memoranda. (Docs. 65, 75, 78).¹ For the reasons set forth herein, I now recommend that the University's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The University is a state university created by the Ohio General Assembly. (Ohio Rev. Code § 3361.06).

Plaintiff's country of origin is Jordan and his race is Arab. (Doc. 64, p. 13). After receiving his Masters of Science degree from Chicago State University in 2007, Plaintiff applied to the University's Graduate Program in Cancer and Cell Biology (the "Program"). Id. at 17, 19.

During the time Plaintiff applied for admission into the Program, Robert Brackenbury was the Director of the Program and Peter Stambrook was the Chair of the Department of Cancer and Cell Biology. (Doc. 64, Ex. 5, p. vi; Stambrook Dep. p. 10).

On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff received a letter informing him that he had been accepted into the Program. (Doc. 64, Ex. 3). The acceptance letter set forth some basic information and guidelines about the Program, including a reference to students completing rotations in laboratories during their first year in order to help them choose a thesis advisor. Id. The letter also encouraged Plaintiff to enroll for the summer quarter, which began July 1, 2008. Id. On July 1, 2008, Plaintiff began his studies in the Program. (Doc. 64, Ex. 3; Brackenbury Dep. p. 19).

In conjunction with his studies, Plaintiff received a University Graduate Assistant Scholarship. (Doc. 64, Ex. 2; Plaintiffs Ex. 3; Brackenbury Dep. p. 16). When notified of his receipt of this scholarship, Plaintiff was also notified that this award was contingent upon his remaining a student in good standing in the Program. Id.

In August 2008, shortly after Plaintiffs acceptance into the Department of Cancer and Cell Biology, that Department merged with the Department of Molecular Oncology. (Stambrook Dep. p. 34; Czyzyk-Krzeska Dep. p. 45). After the merger, Jorge Moscat, who was chair of the Department of Molecular Oncology, replaced Stambrook as thechair of the newly constituted Department of Cancer and Cell Biology. (Stambrook Dep. p. 10; Czyzyk-Krzeska Dep. p. 46).

Shortly before the merger, on July 21, 2008, Brackenbury sent out an email announcing that he had resigned from his position as Director of the Program. (Brackenbury Dep. p. 19, 22; Doc. 74, Pl's Ex. 4). After Brackenbury's resignation, Moscat appointed Susan Waltz and Maria Czyzyk-Krzeska as co-directors of the Program . (Waltz Dep. p. 37; Czyzyk-Krzeska Dep. p. 50).

Incoming Program students are informed of various Program requirements through the Program's Student Handbook (the "Handbook"), as well as through other avenues. (Doc. 64, p. 28-29; Ex. 5). Among other things, the Handbook informs the Program's students that failure to remain compliant with these academic requirements could be grounds for dismissal from the Program. (Doc. 64, Ex. 5, p. 24-25).

One of the academic requirements placed upon Program students is the requirement that they pass five required classes - Biochemistry, Molecular Genetics, Cell Biology, Biology of Cancer and Action of Cancer Therapeutics - with a grade of "B" or better. (Doc. 64, Ex. 5, p. 8, 24). A Program student's failure to meet this requirement is grounds for dismissal from the Program. Id., p. 24.

During the autumn quarter of 2008, Plaintiff received an "I" or incomplete in his Biochemistry course. (Doc. 64, p. 48-49). During the winter quarter of 2009, Plaintiff received a "C" in Cell Biology. Id., p. 53-54.

Another academic requirement for the Program's students is that they select a thesis advisor by the end of their first year in the Program. (Doc. 64, Ex. 5, p. 5, 8, 24; Brackenbury Dep., p. 21). A Program student's thesis advisor bears the total financialresponsibility for each student in the advisor's laboratory, which includes the student's scholarship award, stipend, tuition, health insurance and possible fringe benefits. (Brackenbury Dep. p. 21; Stambrook Dep. p. 59; Waltz Dep. p. 61; Czyzyk-Krezska Dep. p. 94, 106, 109). While the Graduate Program itself provides the stipend and tuition support to students during their first year in the Program, the student's advisor is financially responsible for such costs, as well as the student's research activities, after the student's first year until the student finishes or leaves the Program. Id.

On or about March 2, 2009, after completing only two of the recommended three clinical rotations during his first year, Plaintiff selected Dr. Ray Boissy as his thesis advisor and joined Dr. Boissy's lab. (Doc. 74, Exs. 30, 32; Waltz Dep. p. 92-96; Czyzyk-Krzeska Dep. p. 82).

In late March 2009, Dr. Boissy gave Plaintiff a review and grade that Plaintiff disagreed with. (Doc. 64, Ex. 10). On March 23, 2009, in an email to Dr. Boissy, Plaintiff acknowledged that poor grades were grounds for dismissal from the Program. Id. Plaintiffs email states that a grade of B in Dr. Boissy's lab could "place [him] at the bottom of the ques [sic] and probably get [him] kicked out of the program. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff determined that Dr. Boissy's lab was not an appropriate fit for him. (Doc. 64, p. 68-70; Doc. 74, Ex. 54). Dr. Boissy agreed, and on April 29, 2009, he retracted his commitment to advise and provide financial support for Plaintiff. Id.

On or about April 15, 2009, the Program's Graduate Committee reviewed Plaintiff's performance in the Biochemistry and Cell Biology courses and, based upon this review, placed Plaintiff on academic probation. (Doc. 64, Ex. 5, Ex. 15). In the letter he received from the Graduate Committee notifying him of this decision, Plaintiffwas informed that "should he succeed in bringing grades and performance in alignment with program requirements, [his] probation may be reviewed and returned to good standing." Id.

On or about June 15, 2009, Plaintiff attended a meeting with the Graduate Committee designed, in part, to determine Plaintiffs progress in obtaining an advisor. (Doc. 64, p. 87, 90). During this meeting, Plaintiff informed those attending the meeting that he had not yet obtained an advisor willing to take full financial responsibility for him. Id. p. 88-89. Upon receiving this information, the Graduate Committee again assessed Plaintiff's standing in the Program. (Doc. 64. Ex. 17; Waltz Dep. p. 112-113). The Graduate Committee discussed Plaintiffs failure to find an advisor as well as the fact that Plaintiff was currently on academic probation for having received a grade below a "B" in Cell Biology. (Doc. 64, Ex. 17).

The Program Handbook provides that "any student who is placed on academic probation two times will be dismissed from the doctoral program unless there are extenuating circumstances as determined by the Graduate Committee." (Doc. 64, Ex. 5, p. 25). After weighing all the evidence before it - including the fact that Plaintiffs failure to find an advisor would have placed him in an academic probation status in successive quarters - the Graduate Committee decided to dismiss Plaintiff from the Program. (Doc. 64, Ex. 17).

Plaintiffs dismissal from the Program was effective June 30, 2009. (Doc. 64, Ex.17). Following his dismissal from the Program, Plaintiff availed himself of the Program's and the University's grievance processes. (Doc. 64, Exs. 20, 21, 22, 23; Lingrel Dep.; Zierolf Dep.). These processes included independent reviews of Plaintiff'sdismissal by sources outside the Program, including reviews by a grievance committee, the Dean of the College of Medicine, and the University's Vice Provost/Dean of the Graduate School. Id. At each level, the Program's decision was upheld. Id.

Thereafter, on April 14, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a charge of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Doc. 3). Plaintiff's charge asserted that: (1) he was a natural born citizen of Jordan; (2) he was employed as a Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Cancer and Cell Biology at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine ("the University"); (3) he was discharged from the graduate program on June 19, 2009, for alleged poor academic performance and inability to obtain a faculty advisor; and (4) "similarly situated non-minority Graduate Research Assistants who had no greater academic performance and who also were delayed in obtaining faculty advisors were permitted to continue the program." (Doc. 3). On May 11, 2011, the EEOC closed its file on Plaintiff's charge and issued a "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" letter, noting that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes." (Doc. 3).

Plaintiff filed the instant action in August 2011 against Defendants seeking redress for "discrimination," "conspiracy," and "neglecting disability." The complaint alleges that he was (1) placed on academic probation, (2) dismissed from the University's graduate program, and (3) terminated from his graduate research assistant position based on "rules that don't exist." (Doc. 3 at 2).

The University then moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting, inter alia, that Plaintiff's ADA, § 1983 and ...