Storrs v. University of Cincinnati (271 F. Supp. 3d 910, 2017)

ORDER

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 50)

Judge Timothy S. Black

I. INTRODUCTION

This civil case is before the Court on the motion of Defendant University of Cincinnati (“UC”) for summary judgment (Doc. 50) as well as the parties’ responsive mem-oranda (Docs. 70, 72).

In 2007, Plaintiff Colleen McTague Storrs (“Dr. McTague”) was hired as a tenure-track Assistant Professor in UC’s Geography Department. Dr. McTague ¡successfully applied for reappointment in 2009 and 2011, though multiple faculty members expressed concerns about Dr. McTague’s lack of research and publications during both reappointment evaluations. In 2013, UC denied Dr. McTague’s third application for reappointment, citing her lack of publications. "

On February 24, 2015, Dr. McTague filed the Complaint. The Complaint alleges that UC violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying Dr. M,cTa-gue’s 2013 application for reappointment because of her' gender ánd in retaliation for Dr. McTague complaining of gender discrimination. The Complaint further alleges that UC violated the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) by paying Dr. McTague less than male Assistant Professors. Finally, the Complaint alleges that UC violated the Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) by interfering with Dr. McTague’s FMLA leave during the 2011-2012 academic year and by allegedly denying Dr, McTague’s 2013 application for reappointment in retaliation for her taking FMLA leave.

For the • following reasons,. the Court GRANTS UC’s motion for summary judgment as to Dr. McTague’s claims for Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation, and DENIES UC’s motion as to Dr. McTague’s claim for violation of the EPA.

II. FACTS

A. UC’s appointment process.

At UC, the process of faculty applying for reappointment, promotion and tenure (“RPT”) is governed by a document established for each department in UC’s College of Arts & Sciences (the “RPT document”) which is also adopted by each department consistent with the negotiated collective bargaining agreement between UC and the union for its faculty members, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (Doe. 65 at ¶ 77).

The Geography Department’s RPT document states, in relevant part, that “[a] recommendation for reappointment, with the exception of field service and adjunct faculty, should imply the likelihood of achieving tenure; aptitude or promise should be the initial considerations, but with an ultimate insistence on demonstrated achievement.” (Doc.'39-2 at 65). The Geography Department’s RPT' document states that recommendations affecting Assistant Professors should reflect on the areas of reséarch, teaching, service, arid professional development. (Id. at 65^-67).

In terms of “research,” the Geography Department’s RPT document states that reviewers should consider, inter alia: “The establishment of an active research program involving projects that are likely to result in publication.” (Doc. 39-2 at 65). The document does not list-a specific number of publications that would qualify as an “active research program.”

B. Dr. McTague’s education history and professional background.

Dr, McTague attended high school in Utah and attended Brigham Young University and the University of Utah before graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography around 1976. (Doc. 66 at ¶ 1). Dr..McTague worked as a secondary education teacher for- three to four years, and moved with her family from Utah to New- Orleans and Nebraska before returning to school in a Master’s program at the University of Nebraska around 1992.' (Id. at ¶2). After a year at -the University of Nebraska, she moved with her family to Cincinnati because of her husband’s job. (Id. at ¶ 3).

Dr. McTague obtained her Master’s, degree in Geography from UC around 1999. (Doc.65 at ¶ 4). Dr. McTague obtained her Doctorate in Geography from UC in 2004. (Id. at ¶ 5).

In 2004, Dr. McTague was offered and accepted a position at UC as a “Field Service Assistant Professor” (without tenure), for a three-year term. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 8). During her three-year appointment, Dr. McTague also served as Director of Undergraduate Studies. (Id. at ¶13).

C. Dr. McTague is hired as a tenure-track faculty member in 2007.

Around August 9,. 2007, UC offered Dr. Me Tague a position as a tenure-track Assistant Professor in the Geography Department. (Doc. 70-2 at ¶ 2; Doc.- 39-1 at 16). The annual salary offered by. UC, and accepted by Dr. McTague, was $52,000. (Doc. 39-1 at 16). Dr. McTague does not remember if the position was part of a competitive search or if there was a search committee, but she did not think there was a search for the position, and she did not remember interviewing for the position. (Doc. 39 at 40-41). Dr. McTague testified that her tenure-track Assistant Professor position involved different responsibilities than her field service position: she would have time to do research in her tenure-track role, whereas the field service position was focused on teaching and “no research.” (Id. at 41:16-24),

In October, 2007, shortly after Dr. McTague was hired as a tenure-track professor, Dr. Valerie Hardcastle (Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences) sent an email to the Department Heads in the College of Arts & Sciences that Dr. Liu (Department Head of the Geography Department) circulated to the Geography Department faculty members, including Dr. McTague. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 32). Dean Hardcastle’s email-stated that “some faculty [at UC] are not pulling their weight,” and reiterated that -UC is “a research intensive university and research is an expectation of all tenured and tenure track faculty[.]” (Doc. 39-1-at 18).

Around December' 6, 2007, Dr. McTague met with Dr. Liu to discuss her performance evaluation. (Doc. 65 at ¶36). Their meeting was later summarized in a memorandum signed and dated January 7, 2008. (Doc. 39-1 .at 20). Dr. Liu stated in the memorandum:

I emphasized to Colleen the importance of publications in her future RPT evaluation, which she is fully, aware. She recognizes that it is important that she has articles accepted for publication by the time she comes up for reappointment. As of now, she has not submitted any articles. However, she has indicated that she will devote more time, in writing papers during the winter quarter.

(Doe. 39-1 at 20).

D. Dr. McTague successfully applies for reappointment in 2009.

On or around May 15, 2008, Dr. McTa-gue met with Dr. Liü for her annual review. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 55). The review stated that Dr. McTague’s performance was “excellent” in the areas of teaching and service. (Doc. 39-1 at 42). The review noted that Dr. McTague had not published any papers during her first academic year and had not submitted any papers for publication, (Id.) The review stated Dr. McTa-gue’s research projects were “in their early stages and have not led to publications yet,” but that she was “encouraged to submit her research findings for publication.” (Id.). The review stressed the importance of research in reappointment evaluations:

She had- not submitted any articles for publication at the time -of- this meeting. She expressed her commitment -to devote more time in writing papers in-the immediate future. She is full- aware of the importance of publications in her future RPT evaluations. <

(Id.)

In early 2009, as part of her reappointment application, Dr. McTague noted in her self-evaluation that her research was bare as a result of transitioning from a field service position:

There are disadvantages and advantages associated with beginning a new assistant professor position at a research institution without an established agenda. The three primary and dominant disadvantages are obvious: No publications, no publications in the pipeline and no research ready to begin the pipeline.

(Doc. 39-2 at 15).

On February 26, 2009, the Geography Department RPT committee recommended Dr. McTague for a three-year reappointment. (Doc. 89-2 at 38-40). The committee noted that Dr. McTague’s transition from field service Assistant Professor to Assistant Professor “required that Dr. McTa-gue radically revise her role in the department from one that focused exclusively on teaching and service to one that now includes research in addition to teaching and service.” (Id. at. 38) The Geography Department RPT committee opined that Dr, McTague was making “good progress” in balancing the three obligations. (Id.) The committee praised Dr. McTague’s “high quality, innovative, student-oriented teaching” and her commitment to students. (Id.) The committee commended Dr, McTague for making “credible progress in building a viable research program,” as well as attracting over $100,000 in grants. (Id. at 39), Still, the committee noted that:

A careful reading of Dr. McTague’s annual performance reviews clearly shows that there is a concern that she begin to translate her research into published articles on a regular basis. The RPT com.mittee shares that concern and urges Dr. McTague to continue to readjust her deep commitment to teaching and service so that she has adequate time to devote to writing up her research.

(Id. at 40).

On March 2, 2009, Dr. Liu concurred with the RPT committee. (Doc. 39-2 at 41). Dr. Liu stated “Dr. McTague’s performance is excellent in the areas of teaching and service^]” (Id. at 42). While Dr. Liu stated Dr. McTague’s research is “starting to show promise,” and that she has made “concerted efforts in advancing her research,” he also expressed • concern that none of. her projects had “led to publication,” stating:

I am somewhat concerned that the dossier shows no articles in review and little evidence of any articles in progress. This concern is raised in the RPT committee’s recommendation as well. In my meeting with Dr. McTague in December of 2007, I was pleased that she expressed her commitment to devote more time in writing papers in the immediate future. She is fully aware of the importance of publications in her future RPT evaluations. ■

(Id. at 42). Dr. Liu concluded that a three-year reappointment, as suggested by the Geography Department RPT committee, should allow Dr. McTague time to establish her publication record. (Id.)

On April 15, 2009, the College of Arts & Sciences RPT committee followed both pri- or recommendations and recommended a three-year appointment. (Doc. 39-2 at 52).

On May 8, 2009, Dean Hardcastle issued her letter on Dr. McTague’s application. (Doc. 39-2 at 80). Dean Hardcastle noted that Dr. McTague has a “strong record” in the areas of teaching and service. (Id.). Dean Hardcastle said it was “understandable” that Dr. McTague had been slow to develop a research record due to her transition from a field service position, but stated that she “sharefs] the concerns of the department head and the RPT committee, however, that she has no publications and no scholarship submitted for publication.” (Id.) Dean Hardcastle recommended reappointment for a two-year term, and expressly stated that “[t]o merit a second reappointment, however, [Dr. McTague] will have to demonstrate substantial progress in her-research and in her rate of peer-reviewed publication.”

On August 28, 2009, Provost Anthony Perzigian approved the two-year term recommended by Dean Hardcastle. (Doc. 39-2 at 86). The Provost commended Dr. McTa-gue on her “demonstrated teaching excellence and [her] extensive service.” (Id.) The Provost, too, expressed concern about her research:

A successful dossier for promotion and tenure must contain evidence of documented accomplishment in the areas of teaching, professional activity, and service consistent with your unit’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure criteria. I wish to commend your demonstrated teaching excellence and your extensive service. However, as you look toward that next dossier, I strongly encourage you to -focus on your research agenda; translating your research into a faster publication rate — especially in high-impact scholarly venues; and seeking external funding for your research. Toward those ends, I encourage you to reexamine the balance between your commitments to research and to service so that you can devote sufficient time, energy, and focus to achieving the research requirements of your unit’s RPT criteria.

(Id. at 86).

E. Dr. McTague successfully applies for reappointment in 2011.

Around June 10, 2010, Dr. Liu completed and signed an annual performance evaluation for Dr. McTague. (Doc. 39-3 at 1). The review noted that Dr. McTague had her first article accepted for publication:

Dr. McTague should be congratulated for having an article forthcoming in Dialectical Anthropology. She also had one article in review in Urban Geography, and three articles in progress. She continued to be active in presenting her ■ research at professional meetings.

(Id.) Dr. Liu noted that he “hopes this marks the beginning of a long period of sustained publications” and that Dr. McTa-gue’s “teaching load will remain 4 courses and service load will remain low next year, so she' can continue to focus on research and publication.” (Id.)

In early 2011, Dr. McTague submitted her dossier in support of her application for reappointment. (Doc. 66 at ¶ 106). On February 4, 2011, the Geography Department RPT committee recommended that Dr. McTague be appointed for another two-year term. (Doc. 39-3 at 32). The committee commended Dr. McTague for continuing “to be a great asset (o the department and its students through her teaching and mentoring activities.” (Id.) The committee expressed concern, however, that Dr. McTague’s “rate of publication may not be sufficient to allow her to meet the Department’s RPT criteria for tenure and promotion:”

Dr. McTague had a Field Service Assistant Professor Appointment in the department from September 2004 through September 2007 during which time she had a heavy teaching load and served as Director of Undergraduate Studies. During that time she honed her skills as a teacher and mentor and made extraordinary contributions towards overhauling the undergraduate major and generating student interest in geography. In September 2007, Dr. Mctague’s [sic] appointment was changed to that of a tenure-track Assistant Professor. Since that time she has continued to be a great asset to the department as reflected in glowing student evaluations of her courses and nomination by students for several awards, most recently (currently) for the A.B. Cohen Award for Excellence in Teaching. During the past three ■ years .she has supervised more undergraduate capstone theses than all other faculty combined, advised 5 students through the completion of Master’s degrees; and is currently advisor to 7 graduate students. She remained Director of Undergraduate Studies until September 2008,' at which point she reluctantly stepped down under the advice of the Department Head so that she could focus more on developing a research program. -

• Dr. McTague was reappointed for 2 years as a'tenure-track Assistant Professor beginning September 2010. During the February 2009 department review for that reappointment, both the RPT • committee and department, head noted that Dr. McTague had not yet developed a substantive research program as reflected in an absence of published or submitted articles. In her self-evaluation, Dr. McTague noted that the transition from her field service to tenure-track status had been difficult, including having to disengage herself to a greater extent from her deep involvement in the undergraduate program, including only belatedly stepping down as Director, of Undergraduate Studies. She also noted that she needed to essentially start a research program' from scratch which further slowed her progress in this area. Since that time, Dr. McTague has clearly begun to develop several re- ' search projects, ' secured a modest amount of funding to support some of this effort, and generated several papers presented at professional meetings, one published and one in-press article, and a draft manuscript for an invited chapter in. an edited volume, She has several other article manuscripts in various stages [sic] preparation and a contract for a book. The committee acknowledges that his work represents significant positive steps towards the development of a sustained program of high quality and scholarly productivity. Nevertheless, the majority of the committee expressed serious concern whether or not her current rate of scholarly output, as measured in publications, will be sufficient to meet requirements for promotion and tenure in two years time.

(Id. at 32-33). The committee concluded that Dr. McTague should “further focus on her research and publication efforts in order to increase her productivity in this area in years to come.” (Id. at 33).

On February 4, 2011, Dr. Nicholas Dunning' forwarded the Geography Department RPT committee’s letter to Dr. McTague. (Doe. 39-3 at 37). Dr. McTague responded: “Thank you, Nick, for the letter. It sounds like I should probably start looking for another job or just retire.” (Id.) „ . .

On February 11, 2011, Dr. Liu concurred with the Geography Department RPT committee’s recommendation, (Doc. 39-3 at 34). Dr. Liu praised Dr. McTague’s performance in regards to teaching and service, but shared the committee’s concern regarding her rate of publication:

The appointment of Dr. McTague as tenure track assistant professor in September, 2007, marks a major change in her career, Prior to this appointment, her main focus had been in teaching and service. The tenure track appointment requires her to establish a research agenda and publish her research in scholarly outlets. In my meeting with Dr. McTague in December of 2008, I was pleased that she expressed her commitment to devote more time in writing papers in the immediate future. She was fully aware of the importance of publications in her future RPT evaluations. Knowing her deep commitment to teaching and service, I relieved her, starting September, 2008, from serving as the director .of undergraduate studies and reduced her teaching load. During the process of evaluating her reappointment in 2009, the department RPT committee and myself were concerned that Dr. McTague had no scholarly publications. Since then, Dr. McTague has made concerted efforts in publishing her research. Her dossier indicates that she has one article published in Dialectical Anthropology and another-accepted by Urban Geography. In addition, she has a book chapter in review and several articles in various stages of preparation. These are encouraging accomplishments for Dr. McTague. However, with this rate of publication, I share the Department RPT committee’s concern that.she may not be able to demonstrate a record of sustained high quality, research and publication by the time she applies for promotion and tenure.

(Id. at 35).

On April 21, 2011, the College of Arts & Sciences RPT committee concurred with both prior recommendations, but echoed its concerns regarding Dr. McTague’s publications: “[Dr. McTague] has been slow to develop a record of research and scholarly publication, and may be falling behind the trajectory needed for tenure, as noted in both letters from the department RPT committee and head.” (Doc. 39-4 at 12). The committee concluded:

Ultimately, the. committee felt that Dr. McTague deserved the opportunity to regain lost momentum and meet the department requirements for promotion and tenure, and voted 8-1 in support of the recommendations of the department RPT committee and head for reappointment for a two year term. We hope the candidate will use this opportunity and make every effort to establish a sustained record of publication in this term, so that she will be able to meet the department expectations for promotion and tenure.

(Id.)

On June 2, 2011, Dean Hardcastle departed from all three prior levels of review and recommended that Dr. McTague not be reappóinted. (Doc. 39-4 at 32). Dean Hardcastle recommended against appointment because Dr. McTague’s research performance is “far below what we would expect” from a tenure-track faculty member completing her fourth year. (Id. at 33). Dean Hardcastle opined that Dr. McTa-gue’s research in the time since her 2009 reappointment was insufficient to warrant reappointment:

In recommending her for reappointment in 2009, Í indicated that, to merit a second reappointment, she would “have to demonstrate substantial progress in her research and in her rate of peer-reviewed publication.” In the past two yeays, she has published one co-authored, peer-reviewed article (in Dialectical Anthropology) and has a second in press (at Urban Geography). She has presented six papers since 2008 at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers. She also lists a book chapter as forthcoming and a book manuscript as under contract with the Cincinnatus Association, a local organization .of which she is a member. Because such a book does not meet the department’s criteria for. publications in “outlets sponsored by such scholarly and scientific organizations as university presses, professional associations, and research institutes,” I am surprised that Professor McTague has been encouraged to proceed with .this project. I certainly share the view of the department head that her “rate of publication may not be sufficient to allow her to meet the Department’s RPT criteria for tenure and promotion.” Indeed, I do not see any realistic way in which Professor McTague will be able to fulfill tenure and promotion requirements during the next two years.

(Id. at 32) (emphasis added).

On June 15, 2011, Dr. Dunning, Dr.' Roger Selya, Dr. Robert South, and Dr. Susanna Tong emailed Provost Santa Ono a written objection to Dean Hardcastle’s recommendation. (Doc. 39-4 at 34). These faculty members, stated that Dr. McTa-gue’s transition to a tenure track faculty position “initially proved rather difficult because Dr. McTague had become so deeply involved in the undergraduate program and only reluctantly, and somewhat belatedly, gave up that directorship and reduced her teaching load in order to jumps-tart her own research endeavors.” (Id. at 35). The June 15, 2011 letter argued that “the Department’s RPT document under: scores several criteria for reappointment/promotion; research is one criterion, but we also highly value quality teaching, mentoring and service to the University and community. On the latter, Dr. McTa-gue’s performance has been stellar and her efforts should be recognized and rewarded.” Id:

On August 22, 2011, Provost Ono issued á decision, departing from the recommendation’s at all four prior levels of review, and awarding a one-year reappointment. (Doc. 39-4 at 43). Provost Ono commended Dr. McTague for her accomplishments in teaching and service. (Id.). Provost Ono stated:

At the same time, your peers and all previous reviewérs of your dossier express serious concerns about your record of research and scholarship, and I share those concerns. Most specifically, your attention to'your scholarship needs to address concerns raised by Dean Hardeastle about your book project with the Cincinnatus Association when she notes that this project fails to meet departmental criteria for publication in “outlets sponsored by such scholarly and scientific organizations as university presses, professional associations, and research institutes.” Future dossiers should document and demonstrate that the Cincinnatus Association project indeed meets those criteria; for instance, you might demonstrate that its review process is comparable in scholarly rigor to that of the other organizations mentioned in the criteria. Alternatively, you might seek to place this manuscript — or other manuscripts that would build the record of research and scholarship in relation to the criteria — in other outlets that are clearly scholarly and scientific. At this time, then, I agree with the college RPT committee that you deserve “the opportunity to regain lost momentum and meet thé departmental requirements for promotion , and tenure ...” I am also encouraged by the support that you are getting from your Department, through a reduction in your service obligations and teaching duties. A successful dossier for subsequent reappointment must contain heightened evidence of achievement in research consistent with your unit’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure criteria.

(Doc. 39-4 at 43) (emphasis added).

On the same day, Dr. McTague forwarded the email with the Provost’s letter and recommendation to Dr. South, Dr. Tong, Dr. Selya and Dr. Dunning, thanking them for their “efforts in [sic] my behalf.” (Doc. 39-4 at 41).

F. Dr. McTague takes FMLA and sick leave during the 2011-2012 academic year.

On April 6, 2011, Dr. Tong informed Dr. McTague that she was arranging a meeting with Dr. Dunning, Dr. Selya and Dr. South to see if they could “come up with something to help [Dr. McTague] AND the Department.” (Doc. 39-4 at 7). Dr. McTa-gue thanked Dr. Tong for her concern. (Id.). Dr. Tong responded:

Don’t thank me; I have not done anything!

Anyway, after we ‘met, I was thinking about the options that we have.

PLEASE, please, don’t feel offended; I am just trying to brain storm and come up with some -options so that we can further explore them, and see if we can make it work. Please let me know which of these following options are acceptable to you and which one(s) is(are) totally out:

1. postpone the application of tenure till [sic] your 7th year to buy more ■ time

2. take a family leave (reason: you need to take care of Bruce) to buy some time

3. collaborate with somebody to speed up the research project; the goal is to get the two papers out ASAP, and embark on a short project and get a publication or two out in a year or so

4. change to another position in the Department, a position that is not so research demanding and' is based more on teaching and service, such as Field Service, Visiting Assistant Professor, Lecturer, or something? ? (I know it will be difficult for you, but at least you don’t have to leave, and you will be doing something that you are good at and enjoy)

Please let me know your thoughts. If you can think of any other options that you would like to pursue, please add them on the list. Hopefully, we can identify some feasible avenues, and when the four of us meet on Friday/Monday, we will have at least some discussion points.

(Doc. 39-4 at 8).

On August 26, 2011, Dr. McTague emailed a letter to Department Head Dr. Liu, requesting FMLA- leave beginning September 19, 2011, with an estimated return date of January 1, 2012. (Doc. 39 — 4 at 48-50). Dr.- Liu approved the request the following day. (Id.) Dr. McTague’s leave was later extended through the entirety of the 2011-2012 academic year, as she was able to receive additional sick leave through the AAUP “sick leave bank.” (Doc. 65 at ¶ 142).

Because Dr. McTague was on leave for the entire 2011-2012 academic year, she was not required to apply for reappointment in February, 2012. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 143). On February 29, 2012, Dr. McTague was formally notified that (1) she was approved for a one-year extension of her tenure “probationary period” (which extended her tenure “track” until August, 2014) and (2) she would be reviewed for reappointment in the spring of 2013. (Doc. 40-1 at 13-14).

. While on leave, Dr. McTague did not teach any classes. (Doc. 40 at 193). No one from UC told Dr. McTague to meet with students, though she occasionally met with students because she did not perceive them to be receiving the assistance they required in her absence. (Doc. 39 at 305-309). No one told Dr. McTague she was required to attend faculty meetings, though she occasionally voluntarily attended meetings to “keep up with the department.” (Doc. 40 at 193). Dr. McTague testified she should not have attended these meetings, but she “didn’t understand .FMLA clearly.” (Doc. 39 at 315). Dr. McTague did not know, and could not remember, if any professor in the Geography Department told her she needed to work on her RPT folder while on FMLA or sick leave.- (Doc. 39 at 317).

On September 7, 2011, Dr: McTague corresponded by email with Deborah Herman, her AAUP union representative. (Doc. 39-5 at 7), Dr. McTague- stated that she was under the impression she was supposed to “report things” to Ms., Herman while she was on leave. (Id.) Over- the course of. a few emails,-Ms. Herman informed Dr. McTague that she did not have to report to her, because Dr. -McTague’s leave had already been approved, and Ms. Herman’s “official involvement (so to speak) in the case is over.” (Id.) Ms. Herman concluded: “On a personal level, what I hope is that you. will, be taking care of yourself and your husband, and using the time to recover and make progress on your RPT folder.” (Id. at 9). As Dr. McTa-gue recognized, Ms. Herman is not her supervisor. (Doc. 39 at 317).

G. Dr. McTague complains about the Geography Department and requests a transfer.

In March, 2012, Dr, McTague contacted John Bryan in the Provost’s office to discuss a potential transfer to the Political Science Department. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 152; Doc. 40 at 37-38). Dr. McTague knew Dean Hardcastle was leaving her position and wanted to submit the matter to the new incoming Dean, Ron Jackson. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 154). On or around July 24, 2012, Dr. McTague met with Dean Jackson about her request for a transfer and prepared a three-page memorandum that she submitted to him. (Id.)

. On Juné 1, 2012, Dr. McTague complained to Dr, Tong about several issues within the Geography Department, including that Dr. Liu treated Dr. McTague unfairly by giving her higher teaching and service assignments compared to -male professors, and that Dr. Richard Beck called her. a “lazy bitch,” treated her like the “secretary” of the office, and physically threatened her. (Doc. 70-2 at ¶¶ 24-25). Dr. Tong and Dr. McTague discussed the possibility of Dr. McTague transferring from, the Geography Department to the Political Science Department. (Id. at ¶ 26).

On July 26, 2012, UC Assistant General Counsel Doug Nienaber emailed, • inter alia, Dr. Tong, Dr.- Liu, and John Bryan. (Doc. 67-1 at 18). Mr. Nienaber stated:

I received a call today from Professor Tong, the incoming Department Chair in Geography (A&S), relaying her concern that Professor McTague is planning to sue the University of Cincinnati over her tenure denial.

(Doc. 67-1 at 18).

On- August 1,2012, Mr. Bryan forwarded this email to Dean Jackson. (Doc. 67-1 at 17). Dean Jackson responded:

Wow! I have never heard of suing someone in advance of damages. It- is as though she has no intent of working hard to achieye the tenure standards at this point. Unbelievable. I really want . her to succeed with getting tenure. We will do all we can in the college to support her in her quest for tenure. Of course with this being her penultimate year we will haver [sic] act quickly to help in whatever way we can.

(Doc. 67-1 at 17). Dr. McTague.was ultimately not transferred to the Political Science Department.

H. The Memorandum of Understanding.

In -August, 2012, Dean Jackson appointed Dr. Jana Braziel as an Associate Dean to assist him, and- one of her first assignments was to help prepare a “Memorandum of Understanding” for Dr. McTague. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 156). Dr. Braziel consulted with Dr. Tong, who had been appointed as Interim Department Head for the Geography Department, since Dean Jackson wanted Dr. McTague to have significant releases from her service and teaching responsibilities. (Id. at ¶ 159). On or around September 10, 2012, Dr. McTague met with Dr. Tong and signed the Memorandum of Understanding. (Doc. 40 at 127-29). Dr. McTague did not speak to Dr. Braziel, Dean Jackson, Deborah Herman, or any fellow Geography professors about the Memorandum of Understanding before signing it. (Id. at 129-130).

The Memorandum of Understanding states that, to “facilitate [Dr. McTague’s] progress toward fulfilling the departmental requirements, specifically scholarly research and publications requirements, for tenure and promotion in the Department of Geography,” UC is offering (1) a two-class teaching release in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years with two consecutive semesters of full teaching release in spring 2013 and fall 2013, and (2) a full release from service commitments for two academic years (fall 2012-spring 2014). (Doc. 40-2 at 51).

The Memorandum of Understanding reiterates that, because Dr. McTague was granted a one-year stay of the tenure clock as a result of her one-year leave, Dr. McTague’s appointment was extended until August 31, 2014. (Doc. 40-2 at 51). The MOU states that Dr. McTague will have to submit her RPT portfolio for reappointment in spring 2013 (with a decision forthcoming by August, 2013), and submit the RPT portfolio for final promotion and tenure review by fall, 2013. (Id.)

The Memorandum of Understanding states:

We are offering the two consecutive semesters of teaching release and service reduction in order to promote your scholarly program and to foster your success in meeting the criteria for promotion and tenure as outlined for teaching, service, and research in the Faculty Reappointments, Promotions, and Tenure Criteria and Procedures, which was approved and adopted by the Department of Geography on January 2, 2002 and which was approved and adopted with revision on April 12, 2005. ■

We hope only for your success in this endeavor; and we hope that the teaching release and service reduction' will enable you the requisite time to complete the six working research papers— currently listed as “in process” on your curriculum vitae — and publish these papers as articles in peer-reviewed, prominent academic-journals in the field (as your c.v. indicates that you plan to do).

(Doc. 40-2 at 51).

I. Dr. McTague’s 2013 application for reappointment is denied.

On October 11, 2012, Dr. McTague returned to full-time work in the Geography Department. (Doc. 65 at ¶ 169).,

In February, 2013, Dr. McTague submitted her application for reappointment. Prior to submitting her dossier, Dr.'McTa-gue submitted two more articles to refereed journals. (Doc. 70-2 at ¶ 31). One of these articles was accepted for publication on July 12, 2013, and ultimately published in October, 2013. (Id.) Accordingly, at the time Dr. McTague submitted her application for reappointment in February, 2013, she had published two articles in the five years she was a tenure-track Assistant Professor. (Doc. 70-2 at ¶ 80).

On February 25, 2013, the Geography Department RPT committee recommended that Dr. McTague not be reappointed. (Doc. 40-2 at 61). The vote was 7-2. (Id.)

Consistent with practically every recommendation regarding Dr. McTague since 2009, the majority stated that Dr. McTa-gue’s performance in the areas of teaching, service, and professional development meets (and in some cases exceeds) expectations, but her, “performance in research falls short of what is stipulated in the RPT document.” (Doc. 40-2 at 61). Specifically, the majority opined that the low number of Dr. McTague’s publications, and the low quality of those publications, rendered it “unlikely” she would achieve tenure in 2014:

The majority has noted that inadequate research performance is a recurring problem- in Dr. McTague’s ■ evaluations. In particular, in his Aug 12, 2011 reappointment letter, Provost Santa Ono states that he is reappointing Dr. McTa-gue for one year despite negative recommendations at “all previous levels of review” to give her an additional opportunity to show “evidence of achievement in research - consistent with your unit’s RPT criteria.” In the majority opinion no such achievement is evidence. The 2005 RPT document requires “A record of sustained high quality research and publication directed to a professional audience, indicative of a commitment to research and its publication in refereed journals.” Under professional publications, Dr. McTague’s CV lists, two articles (one published in Dec. 2010 and one in press from Aug. 2011) in refereed journals and a single monograph published in 2000. The 2000 monograph has 38 pages of tables and charts, and reports overall survey results. There is no statistical analysis (just percentage of voters indicating a preference), no maps or spatial analysis, and no references. A search on Google Scholar yields no citations. In the majority opinion this monograph cannot be considered as a peer-reviewed publication. The 2010 article is a brief 6-page paper with a single Google Scholar citation (to the abstract). It was published in a special issue of journal Dialectical Anthropology which has .a very low SJR impact factor of 0.18. The 2011 article is to be published in the journal Urban Geography which has a low SJR impact factor of 0.89. The RPT document states that “A recommendation for reappointment, with the exception of field service and adjunct faculty, should imply the likelihood of achieving tenure.” It is the majority opinion that, in the fact of inadequate research and publication record, the likelihood of. Dr. McTague achieving tenure (she is due for tenure review by the fall 2013 according to the Aug 29, 2012 MOU) is slim. This holds true even under the most optimistic scenario that assumes that her two manuscripts, recently submitted to higher impact factor journals (one to Political Geography submitted on Feb 14, 2013) and another to Applied Geography submitted on Feb 17, 2013), will eventually be published. Regretfully, given her research and publication record, the majority cannot recommend Dr. McTague for reappointment.

(Doc. 40-2 at 61-62).

The minority opinion acknowledged Dr. McTague had a “poor publication record,” but opined that, given Dr. McTague’s most recent submissions, her excellence in teaching and service, and difficult circumstances in her life, recommended that she have additional time to develop her research agenda and build her publication record. (Doc. 40-2 at 62).

On March 16, 2013, Dr. Tong, now Interim Geography Department Head, issued a letter agreeing with the Geography Department RPT committee. Dr. Tong stated:

Our Work Load Policy, which was approved with revisions on April 11, 2006, states that “...the minimum rate of publication for an active research program is on average one article — lead author or co-author, in referred journals (or equivalent) per year.” This implies that she needs to have at least six (6) peer revieived articles in reputable journals published by the time when she applies for tenure. Comparing her research accomplishment with our Work Load Policy and RPT criteria, her paucity of scholarly publication in peer-reviewed journals, even if her two recently submitted papers are accepted, does not bode well for “the establishment of an active research program...” as specified in our RPT document.

(Doc. 40-2 at 88). Dr. Tong concluded:

Although Dr. MeTague has a good record in teaching and service, she has not met the standards of research required in the Department. In her last reappointment letter in 2011, Provost Ono stated that, “A successful dossier for subsequent reappointment must contain heightened evidence of achievement in research consistent with your unit’s reappointment, promotion and tenure criteria.” Unfortunately, the deliverables are not here. I therefore concur with the committee’s recommendation and do not recommend the reappointment of Dr. Colleen MeTague.

(Doc. 40-2 at 83).

On April 15, 2013, the College of Arts & Sciences RPT committee departed from the prior two recommendations, and recommended that Dr. MeTague be reappointed for another year. (Doc. 40-3 at 1). The committee noted that Dr. McTague’s 2011 reappointment came with an expectation of “heightened evidence of research,” and Dr. McTague’s work in the interim had satisfied that criteria. (Id.)

On May 17, 2013, Dean Jackson issued a letter recommending that Dr. MeTague not be reappointed. (Doc. 40-3 at 1). Dean Jackson’s recommendation was based on the fact that Dr. MeTague had not published any articles since executing the Memorandum of Understanding and, in his opinion, she would not be in a position to submit a successful tenure application in a year’s time:

As a means of supporting [Dr. MeTa-gue], I co-developed with her department head Susanna Tong an MOU dated August 29, 2012 that gave her a full release from teaching in spring 2013, and a full release from service for two years starting in August 2012. She taught two courses in fall 2012 and taught nothing in spring 2013. This release from service and partial release from .teaching over the last 8 months was designed as a means of giving her space to move at least 2-4 of the 8 papers she lists on her CV as being in progress out of her hands, in review, and accepted for publication. Each manuscript in progress was at varying levels of completion in August. At that time I cautioned Dr. MeTague that she would need to get something published in order for me to support her for reappointment. Nothing was published during that time frame. Instead, since her appointment as a tenure-track assistant professor in 2007, she has only produced two journal articles. This is not sufficient progress to place her up for tenure this fall. The external reviews 'would not be favorable with so few publications.

(Doc. 40-3 at 3).

On August 5, 2013,. Provost Beverly Davenport issued her final review of Dr. McTague’s reappointment dossier, informing her that she did not approve her reappointment, “due primarily to lack of publication.” (Doc. 40-3 at 9). The letter informed Dr." McTague that her appointment with UC would end effective August 14, 2014. (Id.)

On May 28, 2014, Dr. McTague filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Doc. 40-3 at 15).

J. Other Professors.

The nature of Dr. McTague’s claims requires a comparison between Dr. McTague and several male faculty members in UC’s Geography Department.

1.Dr. Changjoo Kim,

On March 12, 2008, UC hired Dr. Changjoo Kim as a tenure-track assistant professor in the Geography Department. (Doc. 65 at ¶45). Dr. Kim’s salary was $66,000. (Doc. 39-1 at 32). At the' time he was'hired by UC, Dr. Kim was in a tenure-track position at Minnesota State. (Doc. 65 at' ¶ 49). Dr. Hardcastle, the Dean of the College of Arts <& Sciences at the time, testified that, in order to hire Dr. Kim, UC “would have to beat” the salary he was receiving at Minnesota State. (Doc. 43 at 71-72). Dr. Liu recommended that Dr. Kim received a $66,000- salary. (Doc. 48 at 19). Dr. Liu testified that the salary “was based on [Dr. Kim’s] merit, He was Assistant Professor at another university and he. had a strong record of accomplishments, including publications.” (Id. at 15).

. Dr. Kim was granted tenure in 2012. (See Doc. 48 at 61-62; Doc. 48-1 at 43). During his time as a tenure-track Assistant Professor at UC, he published five journal articles. (Doc. 70-3 at ¶52; Doc. 70-1 at 16).

2.Dr, Richard Beck.

In February, 2009, UC hired Dr. Richard Beck as a tenure-track assistant professor in-the Geography Department at a salary of $68,000. (Doc. 65 at ¶60; Doc. 68-1 at 116). Dr. Beck had been a research faculty member at UC on and off for approximately 10 years. (Doc. 46 at 10-11). Dr. Liu and Dr. Hardcastle discussed the appropriate level of compensation for Dr. Beck. (Doc. 43 at 10). Dr. Liu testified that Dr. Beck’s salary was “based on the merit. Richard Beck had a long list of publications. He also had several large research grants.” (Doc. 48 at 23).

Dr. Beck was granted tenure in 2011. (Doc. 46- at 9). At the time he applied for tenure, he had published two journal articles while on tenure-track at UC. (Doc. 44 at 116).

3.Dr. Widener.

Dr, Michael Widener was hired as a tenure-track assistant professor in 2012 at a salary of $70,000. (Doc. 48 at 45-46; Doc. 68-1 at 118). Dr. Widener was hired from a position as a doctoral student;' at the time of his offer, he had not received his Doctorate degree. (Doc. 68-1 at 118).

III. STANDARD

A motion, for summary judgment should be granted if the evidence submitted to the Court demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party has the burden of showing the absence, of genuine disputes over facts which, under .the substantive law governing the issue, might affect the outcome of the action. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. All facts and inferences must be construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but.. .must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986).

IV ANALYSIS,

A. Title VII claims.

I. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

UC argues that portions of Dr.-McTa-gue’s Title VII claim are barred by her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 50 at 41-42). The Court agrees.

Failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies is ah appropriate basis for dismissal of a Title VII action. Williams v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 53 Fed.Appx. 350, 351 (6th Cir. 2002). To exhaust administrative remedies, a plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days after the' alleged' "unlawful employment practice occurred. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). Once the EEOC dismisses the charge and issues a right-to-sue letter, the plaintiff has ninety days to file a civil action. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Here, Dr. McTague .filed her EEOC charge on May 28, 2014. (Doc. 40-3 at 15). Accordingly, Dr. McTague has only exhausted her administrative remedies in regards to events which occurred in the 300 days preceding May 28, 2014. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).

Dr. McTague has identified a number of grievances related to her employment at UC, including being assigned a higher course load than her male colleagues, being treated “like a secretary,” and being yelled at by Dr. Beck. However, the only alleged adverse employment action, that occurred after August 1, 2013, was the denial of her reappointment on August 5, 2013.

For purposes of clarifying the issues to be presented: the only employment action the Court will consider in evaluating Dr. McTague’s Title VII claims is'the denial of her application for reappointment in 2013.

2. Gender Discrimination.

a. Dr. McTague’s prima facie case fails.

Dr. McTague claims that UC violated Title VII by denying her 2013 application for reappointment because of her gender.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating “because of,. .race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). In a Title VII case, a plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuading the fact-finder that the defendant intentionally discriminated against her. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). A plaintiff may carry the burden by: (1) introducing direct evidence which shows that in treating a plaintiff adversely, the defendant was motivated by discriminatory intent; or by (2) introducing circumstantial evidence that supports an inference of discrimination. Logan v. Denny’s Inc., 259 F.3d 558, 566-67 (6th Cir. 2001).

Here, Dr. McTague does not present any direct evidence of discrimination. Accordingly, she must establish a prima facie case through circumstantial evidence.

A plaintiff may establish &'prima facie claim of discrimination by producing circumstantial evidence that satisfies the familiar four-part McDonnell Douglas test. See Birch v. Cuyahoga County Probate Court, 392 F.3d 151, 173 (6th Cir. 2004). Under this test, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position; and (4) a similarly-situated person outside the protected class received more favorable treatment. Id. (citation omitted).

Here, UC argues Dr. McTague cannot demonstrate the fourth prong, ie., she cannot show that any similarly-situated male faculty members were treated more favorably. -(Doc. 50 >at 33). The Court agrees.

In order for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a non-proteeted employee is “similarly situated,” he must “prove that all of the relevant aspects of his employment situation were ‘nearly identical’ to those of [the non-protected employee’s] employment situation.” Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). Further, the individuals with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare her treatment must have “dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Federal courts which have considered Title VII discrimination claims in the context of a denial of tenure have required plaintiffs to show the supposedly “similarly situated” comparator is nearly identical in all factors of employment, including, inter alia, education, experience, and research productivity. See Hellmann-Blumberg v. Univ., of the Pac., No. 2:12-cv-286, 2014 WL 1025111, at *4, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35345, at * 12 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) (“In determining whether parties are similarly situated, the Court looks to specific statistical data relating to the objective criteria for tenure, including education, experience, and number of published works as compared to others who had been granted tenure.”).

Along these lines, courts have required plaintiffs to show that the quality and the quantity of their publications are similar to the alleged comparator. See Liggett v. Wash. State Univ., No. C13-5176, 2014 WL 793150, at *8, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25418, at * 22 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 26, 2014) (plaintiff could not prove she was similarly situated to other professors without evidence of “the substance or reviews of their tenure application” and “the quality or quantity of their scholarship.”); McFadden v. State Univ. of N.Y., 195 F.Supp.2d 436, 454 (W.D. N.Y. 2002) (female plaintiff in a Title VII gender discrimination case could not show she was similarly situated to a male professor who achieved tenure because “[t]he problem was [plaintiffs] scholarship and lack of publication” and “[t]here is no evidence that [comparator’s] qualifications in that regard were similar to plaintiffs”); Chambers v. Ind. State Univ., No. TH 98-8 C M/H, 2000 WL 33309741, at *10-11, 2000 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 20551, at * 31 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 8, 2000) (plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of racial discrimination because “[plaintiff] has not shown that Caucasian professors were granted promotion or tenure despite similar deficiencies in their research performance.”).

The Sixth Circuit has expressly held a plaintiff must establish that her “research and situation” were “nearly identical” to the proposed comparator:

[Comparator] published an article in the most prestigious journal in his field, presented a number of papers, and demonstrated intellectual independence. [Plaintiff], on the other hand, published articles in less scholarly journals and Dr. Mueller repeatedly criticized her for not completing more work independently. While perhaps trivial to the outside world, these relatively minor differences provide sufficient reasons in the academic realm for the discrepancy between the two professors. Thus, we find that [Plaintiff] has not established a pri-ma facie case because her research and situation were not “nearly identical” to that of [Comparator],

Stein v. Kent State Univ., No. 98-3278, 1999 WL 357752, at *5, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9152, at ** 16-17 (6th Cir. May 11, 1999).

Here, Dr. McTague merely alleges she is similarly situated to Dr. Beck, Dr. Kim and Dr. Widener because they served under Department Head Dr. Liu and because they were evaluated under the Geography Department RPT document based on teaching, service, research and professional development. (Doc.70 at 56). This argument fails. Dr. McTague has not set forth any evidence, or even argument, indicating that the quantity and quality of her research was comparable to Dr. Kim, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Widener. Dr. McTague does not provide any evidence or argument from which the Court could conclude that her publications performance — two articles published in five years at the time of her 2013 application for reappointment; three articles published in the six years she was on tenure track — was “nearly identical” to Dr. Beck’s two articles in the two years he was on tenure track or Dr. Kim’s five articles in the four years he was on tenure track.

Second, Plaintiffs argument fails to take into account any “different.. .circumstances that would distinguish” UC’s treatment of these alleged comparators. See Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 352. Concerns regarding Dr. McTague’s research productivity were documented at four of five levels of review during her application for reappointment in 2009 and at all five levels of review in 2011. In 2011, Provost Ono expressly warned Dr. McTague that her next application for reappointment “must contain heightened evidence of achievement.” (Doc. 39-4 at 43).

There is no evidence that Dr. Beck, Dr. Kim, or Dr. Widener had a history of concerns regarding their rate of publication and no evidence they received a warning that their applications for tenure or reappointment had to contain “heightened” achievement. • In the Court’s view, these are “different circumstances” that would distinguish UC’s treatment of Dr. McTa-gue from its treatment of the alleged comparators.

For these reasons, Dr. McTague has not made a prima facie case of discrimination. She has simply not shown that she is similarly situated to any of the male professors in the Geography Department who, she alleges, received more favorable treatment.

b. UC has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.

Even assuming, arguendo, Dr. McTague had presented a prima facie case, that would not end the inquiry- — the burden would shift to UC to articulate a non-diseriminatory reason for- its -.decision. Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1082 (6th Cir. 1994).

As indicated by the final decision issued by Provost- Davenport on August 5, '2013, as well as the recommendations from the Geography Department RPT committee, Interim Department Head Dr. Tóng, and Dean Jackson, Dr. McTague’s 2013 application for reappointment was denied due to lack of publication. This constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the denial of her application. See Lynn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 656 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Without doubt, deficient scholarship is a- legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to deny salary increases or tenure.”).

c. Dr. McTague cannot show pretext.

In response, Dr. McTague' must now come forward with sufficient evidence which could support a finding that UÓ’s rationale was pretextual. Manzer, 29 F.3d at 1083 (citation omitted). Dr. McTague may show this either by directly evidencing that á discriminatory reason “more than likely motivated the' employer” or by indirectly showing that UC’s proffered explanation is “unworthy of credence.” Day v. Board of Trustees of Cleveland State Univ., No. 89CV0046, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21353, at * 7 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 1994). Specifically, Dr. McTague’s evidence:

must show more than a denial of tenure in the context of disagreement about the scholarly merits of-the candidate’s academic work,- the candidate’s teaching abilities or the academic needs of the department or university. Absent- evidence sufficient to support a finding that such disagreements or doubts are influenced by forbidden considerations such as sex or. race,.-universities are free to establish departmental priorities,.to set their own required levels of academic potential and achievement and to act upon the good faith judgments of their departmental faculties or reviewing authorities.;

Id. at * 5 (citation omitted).

First, Dr. McTague argues she was subject to an arbitrary and heightened publications standard compared to other male professors, (Doc. 70 at 63), Dr. McTague argues that Dr. Tong and Dr. Stepinski claimed she needed six articles by the time she applied for tenure, whereas Dr. Beck testified she needed five, while other Department members imposed a seven-publication requirement. (Id.). Dr. McTa-gue argues there is no evidence that male professors in the Geography Department were ever subject to: a five, six, or seven-publication requirement, and, accordingly, UC’s proffered reason is pretext for discrimination. (Id.)

The Court does not agree. This Court has expressly held that even if the subjective criteria in a reappointment or tenure decision is “ignored or misapplied” by reviewing faculty members, that alone cannot show a university’s otherwise legitimate reason is pretext for discrimination. See Doucet v. University of Cincinnati, No. 1:05-cv-148, 2006 WL 2044955, at *18, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29022, at * 57 (S. D. Ohio July 19, 2006) (Dlott, J). Instead, a plaintiff must show evidence that the alleged errors were the result of unlawful discrimination. Id.

In Doucet, the plaintiff (Doucet) was a French national and an assistant professor at UC’s School of Design. Id. at *1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29022, at •• 1-2. UC denied Doucet’s application for reappointment due to Doucet’s failure to demonstrate “satisfactory teaching” as required by the School of Design’s RPT document. Id. at *3, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29022, at * 31. Doucet sued UC, claiming the university had violated her Title VII rights to be free from discrimination on account of national origin. Id. at *15, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29022, at *47. Specifically, Doucet argued that UC’s proffered reason was pretext for discrimination because UC ignored or misapplied relevant RPT criteria and because the review process was tainted with irregularities including the consideration of artificially depressed evaluations. Id. at *18, 2006 U.S.’ Dist. LEXIS 29022, at **57-60. The Court rejected this argument because there was no evidence that these issues were the result' of national-origin discrimination:

While Doucet contends that UC’s.appli-cation of the. RPT criteria was distorted by discriminatory bias and thus pretex-tual, the circumstantial evidence on this point is insufficient to lead any reasonable jury to so conclude. Significantly, although the .University Faculty Grievance Committee concluded that Doucet’s RPT review had been “tainted by procedural irregularities,” it found no' evidence of national-origin bias. See Part I.A.5.b., supra. Nor has Doucet pointed to other evidence that could support a reasonable inference that the alleged irregularities were driven by national-origin bias. For instance, while Doucet suggests that her student evaluation scores were artificially depressed by the inclusion of at least one CAD course she regarded herself as unqualified to teach, there is no indication that national-origin bias — as opposed to resource or other legitimate considerations — motivated the School’s course assignments.

Id. at *19, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29022, at **59-61.

Here, just like Doucet, Dr. McTague argues that review of her reappointment application was tainted by procedural errors, ie., that the reviewing faculty misapplied the RPT criteria and- imposed arbitrary publication requ