Background
Amro Farid, a Muslim professor of Arab-Egyptian descent employed at Dartmouth College, sued the university alleging discrimination based on religion and national origin in the denial of tenure, and retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint through the initiation of research misconduct proceedings against a graduate student. The district court granted summary judgment for Dartmouth, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in Farid’s favor given the university’s articulated reasons for its conduct.
The court’s reasoning
The First Circuit applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to both the discrimination and retaliation claims. The court found that while Farid established a prima facie case and Dartmouth provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, Farid failed to prove pretext. Regarding discrimination, the court held that the tenure comparator, Vikrant Vaze, was not similarly situated because he possessed superior qualifications in scholarship and teaching. Regarding retaliation, the court found no evidence that the research misconduct investigation was a but-for cause of Farid’s protected activity, noting the investigation was handled by individuals uninvolved in the tenure dispute and followed standard procedures.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to prove pretext in employment discrimination cases involving academic tenure decisions and confirms that internal investigations into research misconduct are not automatically considered retaliatory when conducted by separate, uninvolved parties.