Nagarajan v. Hargrove et al

Filing 89

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 81 , filed March 4, 2020] is ADOPTED as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law for all purposes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection [ECF No. 82 , filed March 16, 2020] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 69 , filed May 10, 2019] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintif f's Title VII national origin discrimination claim and DENIED as to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. Signed by Visiting Chief Judge Denise Page Hood on 5/18/2020. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
GOVINDASWAMY NAGARAJAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00495
Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.
SAMUEL HARGROVE, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 81], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO THE REPORT [ECF NO. 82] AND
RECOMMENDATION, and GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 69]
Plaintiff, originally proceeding in pro per, filed this action on March 7, 2016
against Tennessee State University (“TSU”) and a number of individuals associated
with TSU. On January 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes issued a
Report and Recommendation regarding a Motion to Dismiss filed by all the
defendants. On February 10, 2017, attorney James Gerard Stranch III filed an
appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf and filed objections. The Court adopted that Report
and Recommendation, granted the motion to dismiss with respect to all of the
individual defendants but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s
Title VII and ADEA claims against TSU, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks declaratory
1

Case 3:16-cv-00495 Document 89 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1724

relief and compensatory damages. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff’s ADEA claims
against TSU were dismissed. On October 16, 2018, attorney Matthew R. Zenner
replaced Mr. Stranch as Plaintiff’s legal counsel.
On May 10, 2019, TSU filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 69,
which has been fully briefed. On March 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Holmes prepared
a well-written and legally sound Report and Recommendation, recommending that
the motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No.
81. In that Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Holmes concluded that
Plaintiff’s race/national origin discrimination claims should be dismissed for failure
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; specifically, Plaintiff’s inability to
show that he was treated differently from similarly situated non-minority employees.
Magistrate Judge Holmes found, however, that TSU did not establish the absence of
any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the grade appeals process or Dr.
Scheick’s April 4, 2014 letter. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the March 4,
2020 Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 82. TSU filed a response. ECF No. 83.
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that
Magistrate Judge Holmes reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. In
his timely filed Objection, Plaintiff asserts that Magistrate Judge Holmes incorrectly
concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial/national origin
discrimination. Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred when determining
2

Case 3:16-cv-00495 Document 89 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1725

that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that Plaintiff was “similarly situated in all of the
relevant respects to an employee of a different race who was treated better.” ECF
No. 81, PgID 1669-71. Plaintiff argues that TSU failed to raise this issue in its
summary judgment motion, such that Plaintiff did not fully brief and respond to the
argument.
The Court addresses Plaintiff’s last argument first. Although Defendant’s
argument that Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated individuals
outside the protected class was conclusory, Plaintiff is mistaken. As Plaintiff
acknowledges, TSU argued in its Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment
(“Memorandum”) that:
For purposes of his lawsuit, Plaintiff cannot offer evidence of other
similarly situated employees of TSU because there are no other known
TSU professors who collect a salary for doing nothing. Therefore,
Plaintiff has not and cannot show that other similarly situated
employees of TSU were treated better than he was in any regard.
ECF No. 70, PgID 664; ECF No. 82, PgID 1678. In the Memorandum, TSU also
contended that “Plaintiff must show that the individuals to whom he wishes to
compare herself are ‘similarly situated in all respects.’” Citing Mitchell v. Toledo
Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 1992). And, in its Reply Brief, TSU stated:
Plaintiff “has not shown that he was treated differently from a similarly situated
person outside of the protected class. There are no other TSU professors who collect
a salary while doing no actual work.” ECF No. 77, PgID 1633. Because TSU did
3

Case 3:16-cv-00495 Document 89 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1726

address the “similarly situated” element of a discrimination claim, Plaintiff’s
suggestion that “the argument was never even raised by Defendant in its motion for
summary judgment” is without support.
Plaintiff’s assertion that he did not fully brief and respond to the “similarly
situated” element because TSU did not address that element also lacks merit. In his
Response Brief, Plaintiff repeatedly raised the substance of the arguments set forth
in his Objection. See ECF No. 73, PgID 670, 679, 680, 681, 684, 685. Most
poignantly, under the caption “Dr. Nagarajan has been treated differently than other
similarly situated employees outside of his protected class,” Plaintiff argued in his
Response Brief that:
The fourth element of Dr. Nagarajan’[s] prima facie case of national
origin discrimination is that he was treated differently tha[n] similarly
situated employees outside of his protected class. In Ercegovich v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 1998) the
Sixth Circuit clarified that to satisfy the fourth element of the prima
facie case, the comparable employee should be similar in “’all of the
relevant aspects’”. Id. quoting Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co.,
40 F.3d 796, 802 (6th Cir. 1994). Dr. Nagarajan’s national origin is
India, and he is the only physics professor from India. TSU has not
ignored its own grade appeal procedures for any physics professor
except Dr. Nagarajan. No other physics professor has been placed on
even one performance improvement plan, much less two like Dr.
Nagarajan. No other physics professor has been stripped of his or her
teaching assignments, and no other physics professor has been assigned
exclusively to the tutorial lab. At a minimum a genuine issue of material
fact exists as to whether Dr. Nagarajan has been treated differently than
other similarly situated employees outside of his protected class.
Therefore, summary judgment should be denied.
ECF No. 73, PgID 685 (emphasis in original).
4

Case 3:16-cv-00495 Document 89 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1727

As to the insufficiency of the fourth element of Plaintiff’s prima facie case of
national origin discrimination, the Court rejects TSU’s characterization of the class
of “similarly situated persons.” TSU’s tact of labeling the class of similarly situated
persons as, in essence, “TSU professors who collect a salary while doing no actual
work” is: (a) unwarranted and inappropriate, generally; and (b) as it relates to
Plaintiff specifically, is insulting, as TSU (not Plaintiff) determined that he is not
permitted work while continuing to receive his salary. Instead, as Magistrate Judge
Holmes correctly determined, an employee in the comparable class would be “an
employee at TSU who has engaged in the same conduct of which Plaintiff is
accused.” ECF No. 81, PgID 1669 (citing Hall v. State Farm Ins. Co., 18 F.Supp.2d
751, 767 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (citing Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 582-83) (noting a plaintiff
seeking to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination must “identify other
similarly situated non-minority employees who engaged in misconduct of
comparable seriousness”)).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Response Brief and Objection lack
identification of any TSU employee engaged in similar misconduct or any evidence
that any such TSU employee was treated any differently (better) than Plaintiff. It is
not the role of the Court to ascertain or investigate whether there are any such
employees and how they were treated, and Plaintiff has not shown a comparator.
Plaintiff’s failure is fatal to his case and summary judgment is appropriate on this
5

Case 3:16-cv-00495 Document 89 Filed 05/19/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1728

claim. See, e.g., Cox v. EDS Corp., 751 F.Supp. 680, 692 (E.D. Mich. 1990);
Johnson-Romaker v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship One, 609 F.Supp.2d 719, 730-31 (N.D.
Ohio 2009). Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Objection.
Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and
for the reasons stated above, the Court adopts all of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 81, filed
March 4, 2020] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law for all purposes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection [ECF No. 82, filed
March 16, 2020] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 69, filed May 10, 2019] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Title VII national origin discrimination claim and
DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim.
IT IS ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2020

s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SITTING BY SPECIAL DESIGNATION
6

Case 3:16-cv-00495 Document 89 Filed 05/19/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1729