Evidentiary Support For Multiple Professorial Transgressions
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana Hammond Division granted summary judgment to Indiana University in a dismissed professor’s pro se employment discrimination case.
The court cited undisputed facts
In the fall of 2000, a female undergraduate student lodged a complaint about Assibey with the University’s affirmative action officer, Delores Rice. Assibey acknowledged at the time, and continues to do so, that he had kissed the student on the face, referred to her as “sweetheart,” and told her he thought he had fallen in love with her. Assibey has also acknowledged that such behavior by a professor is inappropriate and unacceptable. As a result of the incident, Assibey was suspended from teaching for the rest of the fall semester, with pay, and required to have counseling regarding sexual harassment. The University warned Assibey that any additional confirmed reports of inappropriate behavior could result in further discipline, up to and including proceedings to terminate his position. Assibey’s grievance challenging his suspension was denied by the Faculty Board of Review.
In summer 2011, another female student complained to the University that, because she declined his offer to take her to dinner, Assibey refused her request for materials from a class she missed. The student also reported that Assibey had made her uncomfortable by asking her for personal information she didn’t want to disclose, such as where she lived, whether she was single, and how many children she had. The Affirmative Action Director who interviewed both Assibey and the student found her account of the events more credible.
In the course of the 2011 investigation, Assibey disclosed that he had all of his students complete a questionnaire he called a “Familiarity Form,” providing him with their marital status, phone number, disabilities and other personal information. Assibey later acknowledged that he had used some of the information he obtained in the Familiarity Form to contact students about participating in a family business venture, involving sales of vitamin supplements and weight loss products. Assibey has acknowledged that such solicitation of students could be perceived as a conflict of interest and inappropriate behavior for a professor. The University also believed Assibey’s use of the Familiarity Form violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act…
There’s more. The University had concerns about Assibey’s conduct in violation of federal copyright laws and the school’s Fair Use policy. Assibey had University employees make copies of an entire textbook for the University bookstore to sell to his students. In an another instance, Assibey made copies, and had copies made, of multiple chapters of another book, and then sold those excerpts to his students as a course text, pocketing the proceeds himself. Assibey has acknowledged that it is entirely reasonable for the University to expect its faculty not to expose the University to claims of copyright violation, and not to copy and sell copyrighted materials while employed by the school.
Citations to the record omitted in the above quoted material.
The court per Chief Judge Simon
Other than the mere fact of Assibey’s race and national origin, which is obviously insufficient, Assibey has no evidence that could rationally support a conclusion that racial or national origin animus motivated his suspensions or his termination by IUN. Instead, the record is replete with evidentiary support for multiple transgressions of University policy and otherwise inappropriate and unacceptable conduct by Assibey. As I’ve already indicated, Assibey does not offer evidence of White American employees who received better treatment though similarly situated in terms of their misconduct. And although Assibey suggests alternative interpretations of what the University saw as his transgressions, I don’t “sit as a ‘super-personnel department,’ second-guessing an employer’s legitimate concerns about an employee’s performance.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc., 788 F.3d 673, 680 (7th Cir. 2015).
(Mike Frisch)