Feng Tao v. University of Kansas, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas considers Defendants’ motions to dismiss claims brought by Feng Tao, a former tenured University of Kansas professor. The court dismisses the hostile-work-environment and most procedural due process theories, but allows Tao’s Title VII wrongful-termination claim to proceed. The court also denies Tao’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the underlying basis for relief was dismissed.

Holdings

1. A Title VII charge that alleges only discriminatory termination and contains no facts concerning a hostile work environment does not exhaust a hostile-work-environment claim merely because the claimant checked a continuing-action box.
2. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a Title VII plaintiff need not plead detailed comparator facts or conclusively establish a prima facie case; the complaint need only plausibly allege an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
3. Tao plausibly stated a procedural due process claim based on termination without a pretermination hearing, and the parties' agreement did not foreclose that claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage because Tao was ultimately acquitted.
4. A refusal to reinstate an employee is not itself a denial of procedural process, and the Fourteenth Amendment does not require officials to constitute an internal employment review board in a particular contractual manner.
5. The alleged lack of an internal appeal or posttermination hearing did not state a federal procedural due process claim where Kansas law provided an adequate judicial review remedy for tenured professors.
6. The individual-capacity procedural due process claim was dismissed because the asserted right to await completion of all criminal appellate proceedings before termination, despite the parties' written agreement, was not clearly established.
7. Tao plausibly pleaded official-capacity racial discrimination claims under §§ 1981 and 1983 because the pleading standard and discrimination analysis were materially the same as under Title VII, and his allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tao exhausted administrative remedies for his Title VII hostile-work-environment and continuing-discrimination allegations.
2. Whether Tao plausibly pleaded a Title VII wrongful-termination claim without alleging detailed comparator facts.
3. Whether Tao stated an official-capacity procedural due process claim based on termination without a pretermination hearing.
4. Whether refusal to reinstate Tao or to constitute the Faculty Rights Board in the contractually specified manner stated a procedural due process claim.
5. Whether Tao's individual-capacity procedural due process claim was barred by qualified immunity.
6. Whether Tao plausibly pleaded official-capacity equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

Disposition

other