Moini v. Wrighton

602 F.Supp.3d 162

Mehdi MOINI, Plaintiff,

v.Mark S. WRIGHTON, in his official capacity as President, George Washington University, Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-03126 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 13, 2022

Mehdi Moini, McLean, VA, Pro Se.

Daniel I. Prywes, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. McFADDEN, United States District Judge

George Washington University denied tenure to Dr. Mehdi Moini. Proceeding pro se , Moini sued the University's President—a position held by Dr. Thomas LeBlanc at the time and now by Dr. Mark S. Wrighton—alleging that the denial violated multiple laws and his employment contract. After the Court partially granted the President's motion to dismiss, the parties proceeded to discovery. That phase is complete, and both parties now move for summary judgment.

The Court finds that the University propounded a legitimate reason for denying tenure: That Moini had not met the requisite standard for teaching. Moini tries to show that this explanation was pretext for race discrimination. None of his arguments succeed. So too for his contractual claims, which are either time-barred or do not show any violation of a contract by the University.

The Court therefore will grant the President's motion and deny Moini's cross-motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Tenure Application and Review

The University is a private institution in Washington, D.C. Moini, who identifies himself as a "Middle Eastern (Iranian) man," Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1, began his career there in 2014 as an untenured Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Sciences (the Department), see Def.’s Statement of Mat'l Undisputed Facts (Def.’s SMUF) ¶¶ 8, 9, 11, ECF No. 48.¹ Although the University did not hire Moini to a tenured position, it said it would reach a tenure decision in three-and-a-half years—by mid-2017. See id. ¶¶ 9, 11. That timeline was quicker than usual: the University typically makes tenure decisions after seven years. See id. ¶ 9.

When Moini accepted the position, he agreed to all conditions "stated in the Faculty Code and Faculty Handbook." Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (Def.’s MSJ), Ex. 22, ECF No. 48 at 950. The Code contains the criteria for tenure. As of 2015, it reserved tenure for faculty "who demonstrate excellence in scholarship, teaching, and engagement in service and who show promise of continued excellence." Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 6 (Faculty Code) § IV(C)(1), ECF No. 48.² This case centers on the "excellence in teaching" criterion.

Moini began teaching classes in fall 2014, including a mandatory graduate seminar called FORS 6292. See Def.’s SMUF ¶¶ 73, 74. Moini originally did not teach the class alone. From Fall 2014 to Spring 2016 he co-taught with Dr. Walter Rowe, see id. ¶ 77, a Caucasian tenured professor.

Students would evaluate each class at the end of the semester and rate faculty on a scale of one to five, with five being the best. Id. ¶ 80. During Moini's first year, students evaluated him and Rowe together. Id. ¶ 77. The average scores in those evaluations fell short of the Department's overall average. See id. ¶¶ 85, 89. Moini also co-taught two other classes and received similarly below-average evaluations from students. See id. ¶¶ 87, 91.

Those scores did not escape the notice of University officials. The Department Chair, Victor Weedn, told Moini in 2014 that his teaching needed to improve because Moini's scores "[were] not as good as the others." Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 10 (Weedn Dep.), ECF No. 48 at 681. Weedn also referred Moini to the University's Teaching Center. See Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 13 (Moini Dep.), ECF No. 48 at 784. And in 2015, Weedn told Moini and Rowe that their seminar had prompted critical comments from students. See id. at 803.

Starting in Fall 2015, students could evaluate teachers individually. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 93. Between that time and when he submitted his application for tenure, Moini taught six classes. He received below-average scores in five of them. See id. ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103. That trend continued after Fall 2016, when Moini began teaching the graduate seminar by himself.

The University had promoted Rowe to Department Chair earlier that year. See id. ¶ 22. With that position, Rowe wrote some of Moini's annual report for the 2015–16 school year. See Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 18, ECF No. 48 at 902–918. Rowe praised Moini as "a valuable asset to the Department" but admitted that student evaluations of Moini were "a mixed bag." Id. at 916. Moini particularly "need[ed] to improve the graduate seminar course." Id. Moini himself admitted in that same report that his evaluations "show[ed] mixed results." Id. at 907.

In September 2016, Moini applied for tenure and promotion. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 126. That submission began a multi-level process of review. First, the Department's Personnel Committee—chaired by Rowe—evaluated Moini's materials. The Committee praised his "very strong research program" and "strongly positive" evaluations from external reviewers. See Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 3B, ECF No. 48 at 153. But the Committee also noted that Moini's student evaluations were "notably below departmental averages." Id. "Because of this," the Committee could not vote for tenure but requested that the Dean extend Moini's tenure clock. Id. The Dean denied that request. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 133. So the Committee reconvened and "unanimously" voted to recommend Moini for tenure. Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 3C, ECF No. 48 at 155.

According to Rowe, who supported Moini's elevation, the Committee felt he was "too valuable an assert [sic]" to lose. Id. Rowe then wrote a letter in which he "strongly endorse[d]" the recommendation of tenure. Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 3D, ECF No. 48 at 160. Rowe acknowledged that Moini's evaluations "ha[d] been below departmental averages," but the Department doubted that those evaluations "provide[d] a complete picture of [Moini's] interactions with [ ] students." Id. at 159.

Moini's tenure application then followed a lengthy and ultimately fruitless path:

• The Personnel Committee of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences (CCAS or the College)—which housed the Department—reviewed Moini's application. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 148. Based on the low numerical scores and negative comments from students, the committee had "a strong negative impression of [ ] Moini's teaching," which "f[ell] well below" what the committee "would expect from [ ] tenured colleagues." Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 4G, ECF No. 48 at 368. So the committee recommended against tenure.

• The College's Dean agreed with the CCAS Committee that Moini's teaching "ha[d] not manifested excellence." See Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 4H, ECF No. 48 at 373. He recommended against tenure. See id. at 373.

• The University's Provost likewise recommended against tenure. See Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. 50, ECF No. 53-6 at 1140–41.

• Moini's application went to review by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC). See id. ¶ 163. The FSEC first found that Moini's application "[did] not provide substantial evidence of excellence in teaching" but then recommended to extend his tenure clock rather than deny tenure. Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 4I, ECF No. 48 at 388.

• The University President disagreed.³ He denied tenure outright, determining that Moini had "failed to meet the standard of excellence in teaching." Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 4J, ECF No. 48 at 390.

The President's decision was final, and the University informed Moini of it in June 2017. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 171.

B. The Grievance Process

But that was not the end of the matter. In August 2017, Moini filed a grievance under the Faculty Code. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 172. Under that process, a Hearing Committee determines whether a grievant "has established by clear and convincing evidence" a violation of the Code. See Procs. for Impl. of Faculty Code § (E)(4)(c)(7), ECF No. 48 at 503. Like the tenure application, the grievance process includes multiple levels of review.

After hearing arguments from Moini and the University, a majority of the Hearing Committee affirmed the denial of tenure. The majority agreed on the excellence of Moini's scholarship and research but determined that the evaluations from the graduate seminar sustained the earlier conclusion that Moini's teaching fell "short of excellent." Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 30, ECF No. 48 at 1002. One panel member dissented. He concluded that the seminar was, by its structure and content restrictions, "unteachable" regardless of professor. Id. at 1004. He also decried the reliance on student evaluations, which he said were not "a sufficient basis for assessing teaching." Id.

From there, Moini's grievance followed another multi-step but unsuccessful path:

• Moini first appealed to an Appeals Panel consisting of eight professors from various departments. The Panel unanimously overturned the Hearing Committee's decision, concluding that the Committee and the tenure reviewers had improperly relied "solely on student evaluations of" the graduate seminar, "disregard[ing] every other metric on which teaching should be evaluated[.]" Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 31, ECF No. 48 at 1009.

• The Provost then reviewed the Appeals Panel decision. Contrary to that Panel, he concluded that the various reviewers had considered the entire record, not solely the graduate seminar evaluations. See Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 4O, ECF No. 48 at 446. He also noted the Panel's admission that Moini's evaluations were merely "acceptable." See id. at 449–50. For these and other reasons, the Provost found compelling reasons not to affirm the Appeals Panel's decision. See id. at 454.

• As a final reviewer, a committee of the University Board of Trustees agreed with the Provost. See Def.’s SMUF ¶ 236.

After denial of his grievance, Moini left the University sometime in 2018. See Decl. of Daniele Podini, ¶ 13, Def.’s MSJ, Ex. 2, ECF No. 48 at 138–39.

C. This Action

In October 2019, Moini filed this pro se Complaint against the President. See Compl., ECF No. 1. He alleged that the denial of tenure constituted discrimination in...