The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this employment discrimination action filed by Xu-Shen Zhou ("Plaintiff") against the State University of New York Institute of Technology, Dr. Lisa Berardino, Dr. Stephen Havlovic, Dr. William Langdon, and Dr. Peter Spina ("Defendants"), is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 69.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, a person of Chinese nationality and origin, was subject to discrimination during his employment at the State University of New York Institute of Technology ("SUNY IT"). (See generally Dkt. No. 28 [Plf.'s Am. Compl.].) More specifically, Plaintiff alleges as follows.
Beginning in August 2005, Defendant Langdon, who was Plaintiff's supervisor, harassed and intimidated Plaintiff by (1) making "repeated negative comments about China and persons of Asian origin," (2) seeking "to have plaintiff do the work for a scholarly publication but include Langdon's name [on that publication]," (3) "encourag[ing] students to make complaints against plaintiff," (4) telling Plaintiff that he could assist Plaintiff with student complaints "if plaintiff helped [him] get a paper published," (5) "unfairly criticizing plaintiff's teaching," (6) "behaving in a menacing manner," and (7) "recommending against plaintiff's reappointment." (Id.) Plaintiff complained about Defendant Langdon's behavior to human resources on June 29, 2006, and to Defendant Havlovic on July 6, 2006. (Id.) Defendant Berardino also "knew of Plaintiff's complaints of unlawful discrimination."
During Plaintiff's meeting with Defendant Havlovic, Defendant Havlovic "assured Plaintiff that the complaints that had been made by a few students about Plaintiff was a closed issue." (Id.) After this meeting, Defendant Havlovic "began to exaggerate the import of those student complaints . . . and opposed plaintiff's reappointment." (Id.)
Despite Plaintiff's complaints, SUNY IT "failed or refused to take appropriate action to remedy the hostile working environment." (Id.) Instead, Defendants "retaliated against plaintiff [by] . . . refusing to renew his employment contract." (Id.) Defendant Spina also "stated in front of faculty members 'We do not want foreigners' or words to that affect"; and it was her decision not to recommend Plaintiff for reappointment that lead to his termination. (Id.)
Based on these (and other) factual allegations, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as asserting the following three claims: (1) a claim of national origin and/or race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Section 292 of the New York State Human Right's Law ("NYHRL"); (2) a claim of hostile work environment based on national origin and/or race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Section 292 of the NYHRL; and (3) a claim of retaliation based on national origin and/or race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Section 292 of the NYHRL. (Id.) Familiarity with the remaining factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties. (Id.)
B. Undisputed Material Facts
The following material facts are not in dispute. (Compare Dkt. No. 69, Attach. 1 [Defs.' Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 78, Attach. 7 [Plf.'s Rule 7.1 Response].)
1. Plaintiff's Initial Employment with SUNY IT
SUNY IT is a college within the educational system of New York State. In or around July 2005, Plaintiff applied for a position at SUNY IT to teach finance as a faculty member in the School of Business. Plaintiff was initially interviewed over the telephone, and was subsequently interviewed in person during a campus visit. When Plaintiff was interviewing at SUNY IT, he did not disclose that he had received complaints from students about his teaching at Bloomsburg University.
On July 19, 2005, Dr. Peter Spina, the Interim President at SUNY IT, sent to Plaintiff an initial offer of employment, which was contingent upon official notification from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that Plaintiff had authorization to work at SUNY IT. Plaintiff's employment was scheduled to begin on September 1, 2005, and the offer was for a two-year appointment. Dr. Steven Havlovic, Dean of the School of Business and tenured Professor of Human Resource Management, endorsed the hiring of Plaintiff.
Sometime after Plaintiff began teaching at SUNY IT, students in his class made complaints about him. During the summer of 2006, Plaintiff went on a car ride with Dr. Langdon, a full professor at SUNY IT who served (with all the tenured professors in the School of Business) on the School of Business Review Peer Committee. During the car ride, Dr. Langdon explained to Plaintiff that he and Dean Havlovic had received complaints regarding Plaintiff's teaching style. Dr. Langdon also told Plaintiff that he and another professor were working on a research project, and indicated that he could use Plaintiff's help.
Shortly after the car ride, Dr. Langdon called Plaintiff, who informed Dr. Langdon that he was not interested in working on the research project. Plaintiff also contacted Dean Havlovic and Anthony Panebianco, Associate Vice President of Human Resources, to complain about the car ride. Dean Havlovic advised Plaintiff that he was not required to work on papers that he did not wish to work on. Dean Havlovic subsequently contacted Dr. Langdon, and instructed Dr. Langdon not to take employees on car rides.
During the fall of 2006, Dr. Langdon was contacted by Dean Havlovic, who informed Dr. Langdon that he had received additional complaints regarding Plaintiff's teaching. By the same point in time, Dr. Langdon also had received written complaints from students regarding Plaintiff's teaching. One student requested to withdraw from Plaintiff's class on account of Plaintiff's limited English language skills. The student stated, "I cannot comprehend [Plaintiff because he] speaks very broken English and most of my class has no idea what he is saying."
2. Plaintiff's Application for Renewal
Also during the fall of 2006, Plaintiff's teaching contract was up for renewal. Plaintiff, along with two other candidates, put in applications for two-year renewals. As Dean of the School of Business, Dr. Havlovic sent Plaintiff a memorandum outlining the steps for renewal. The memorandum included a recommended timetable for the Personnel Actions. The memorandum stated that faculty members who were being reviewed would be notified by the appropriate Dean and instructed to complete and/or update their personnel files. Those who wished to have an advocate needed to send the notification by a certain date. The memorandum also outlined the committees that were set up for the review process.
Prior to the President of SUNY IT making a final decision on renewal or non-renewal of a faculty member, it is SUNY IT's practice to receive recommendations from the School's Personnel Committee, the College-Wide Personnel Committee, the Dean, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Dr. Lisa Berardino, Associate Professor for the Department of Business, along with two other professors, Robert Yeh and Ed Petronio, served on the School of Business Personnel Committee (hereinafter "Personnel Committee"). The Personnel Committee served to coordinate the faculty review of professors who are up for employment renewal on behalf of the School of Business Peer Review Committee (hereinafter "Peer Review Committee"). The guidelines that govern the review of professors that are up for renewal are entitled "The State University of New York Policies of the Board of Trustees."
3. Personnel Review Committee's Evaluation, Recommendation and Subsequent Action
Pursuant to SUNY IT guidelines regarding the renewal of faculty members, the Personnel Committee was required to organize the three candidates' materials, review them, and ultimately make a recommendation to the Peer Review Committee. Before making their recommendation, Dr. Yeh and Dr. Berardino met to discuss the review of the three candidates. Although Mr. Petronio was invited to the meetings, was a part of the Personnel Committee's recommendation, signed the Personnel Committee's letters, and as was kept informed by Dr. Berardino as to the status of the review process, he was not present for the meetings because he was traveling during most of the review period.
With regard to the standard of review pertaining to the contractual renewal determination, the following five criteria were considered: (i) the candidate's terminal degree; (ii) the candidate's teaching ability and effectiveness; (iii) the candidate's research; (iv) the candidate's university service; and (v) professional development. Under normal circumstances, professors are renewed for two years if the review results in a determination that the candidate is meeting the relevant criteria.
To ascertain effectiveness in teaching, among other things, the Personnel Committee reviewed each candidate's Individual Development and Educational Assessment scores (hereinafter "IDEA"). The IDEA rating system allows students to rate professors by soliciting feedback and evaluating teaching. The scale for IDEA scores goes from one-to-five. A score of one is very bad while a score of five is great. The Personnel Committee also considered a portfolio, put together by the candidate, with information from his or her perspective on each of these categories, along with written complaint from students (if any).
Plaintiff's IDEA scores were not great. In addition, Plaintiff had received written complaints from students. Nonetheless, Dr. Berardino visited with Ken Wallace, Plaintiff's advocate, and told him that the Personnel Committee was planning to propose a one year renewal. Mr. Wallace indicated that was fine. The Personnel Committee then recommended to the Peer Review Committee that Plaintiff be renewed for one year.
4. Peer Review Committee's Evaluation, Recommendation and Subsequent Action
The Peer Review Committee, which consisted of eight tenured professors from the business department, met to review the recommendation made by the Personnel Committee. Dr. Berardino was also part of the Peer Review Committee. At the meeting, Robert Orilio, the Undergraduate Coordinator, and William Langdon, the Coordinator of Finance, each expressed his concerns about Plaintiff's inability to teach undergraduate students. A discussion ensued about how the students were being harmed and how they were not learning. Ultimately, the Peer Review Committee rejected the recommendation for a one-year renewal in a vote of 6-2. The rejection of the appointment was based on Plaintiff's weak IDEA evaluations, student complaints, and the comments by coordinators Will Langdon and Dr. Robert Orilio. Dr. Berardino was one of the six faculty members to vote not to renew Plaintiff for a one-year term.
After the Peer Review Committee voted against renewing Plaintiff's contract, the Personnel Committee was required to send this recommendation to the College-Wide Academic Personnel Committee (hereinafter "College-Wide Committee"), which consisted of tenured faculty members across the different schools and areas of SUNY IT. Dr. Berardino prepared a draft memorandum that she circulated by email message to the other two members of the Personnel Committee for their review. The memorandum was then printed, circulated to the three members of the Personnel Committee for their signatures, and sent to the chair of the College-Wide Committee. Dr. Havlovic also received a copy of a memorandum, dated October 31, 2006, which ...