Narayanan v. Midwestern State University ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 11, 2023
No. 22-11140 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
N. Sugumaran Narayanan,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Midwestern State University,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CV-46
______________________________
Before King, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Appellant N. Sugumaran Narayanan appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Midwestern State University
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII. Finding that the
district court did not err and properly granted summary judgment, we
AFFIRM the district court’s ruling on all ADA claims. Finding that the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
district court erred, we VACATE and REMAND on the Title VII claims,
as described in detail herein.
I. Background
N. Sugumaran Narayanan began teaching at Midwestern State
University (“MSU”) on September 1, 2007, as an Assistant Professor. In
2013, he was granted tenure and in 2015 he was promoted to Associate
Professor. In 2016, Narayanan sued MSU “for denial of a promotion based
on retaliation as well as race, color, and national origin” which was settled
out of court. 1
Beginning in 2017, Narayanan began experiencing stress-related
health issues including anxiety and hypertension. Narayanan requested and
was granted leave to tend to these health-related issues. Once he recovered,
Narayanan requested to teach summer classes for the summer 2018 session
but was denied the opportunity.
On September 6, 2018, Narayanan requested a two-year leave of
absence, to begin in Spring of 2019 “for good cause.” In his request,
Narayanan states, “I am seeking to apply for a two-year leave of absence
(without compensation), for good cause, beginning the Spring semester of
2019.” MSU denied the request due to the hardship it would impose on the
Political Science Department, which was short-staffed at the time.
Narayanan took extended leave despite the denial.
On November 28, 2018, two months after the previous request,
Narayanan requested expedited advanced funding for travel to Kuala
Lampur, Malaysia, to present a paper at a conference in December of that
_____________________
1
In his original complaint, Narayanan asserted that his, “race, Asian, National
Origin (Malaysian) and color (brown),” was a “motivating factor” for the actions of the
Appellee.
2
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
year. It was on this trip that Narayanan was diagnosed with cervical
spondylotic myelopathy. On January 8, 2019, just before the start of the
spring semester Narayanan submitted a two-page “Documentation of
Disability” form from his doctor in Malaysia saying that he “cannot fly,” and
giving a time frame of “at least six months,” before he could resume his job
functions due to a new diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. This
was the first time this condition was mentioned to MSU. The leave was
granted, and Narayanan subsequently exhausted all paid and unpaid leave
related to this claim.
In January 2019, Narayanan filed another complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) based on retaliation for
filing his 2016 suit and continued discrimination based on race, color, and
national origin. 2 On January 16, 2019, MSU informed Narayanan that he
would receive teaching assignments for Fall 2019. On May 13, 2019, MSU
emailed Narayanan to notify him of his fall 2019 teaching assignments. Over
the next few months, MSU emailed Narayanan three separate times
requesting that he sign his Annual Employment Contract (“Contract”). On
August 12, 2019, Narayanan emailed MSU’s disability office requesting
additional leave related to his cervical spondylotic myelopathy diagnosis,
which he said rendered him unable to fly to MSU from Malaysia for “at least
another 6 months” extending to “possibly 12 months.”
On August 20, 2019, MSU responded with an Employee Individual
Accommodation Plan (“Plan”) that acknowledged Narayanan’s disability
and offered accommodations of a chair available in the teaching classroom,
ergonomic office furniture, and limits on extended travel. Narayanan
responded the following day, August 21, 2019, that the offered
_____________________
2
The record is unclear on the exact date this EEOC complaint was filed.
3
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
accommodations were not sufficient. The same day, Narayanan responded
to MSU’s third email about signing his Contract stating he would sign once
his Plan was finalized. MSU viewed Narayanan’s failure to return this
Contract, and his failure to report to campus to teach classes on August 26,
2019, as breaches of duties justifying termination. Narayanan argues that a
reasonable accommodation would have allowed him to teach his classes
online, while MSU believes his physical presence on campus was necessary
to perform his duties. Narayanan also states that online classes were common
at MSU; however, there is no record of online classes being discussed
between the parties as an accommodation.
On August 28, 2019, MSU emailed Narayanan with an updated Plan,
which recommended “[l]eave time unless such accommodation would have
undue hardship on the functioning of the department or university.”
Narayanan responded to MSU the next day, August 29, 2019, asking for the
“undue hardship” phrase to be removed, but he never signed the Plan. MSU
emailed Narayanan later again on August 29, 2019, denying his request for
up to two additional semesters of leave citing “undue hardship” and offering
the same accommodations from the August 20th email. Narayanan did not
offer any accommodation alternatives, and he did not report to teach his
assigned fall classes.
On September 18, 2019, MSU staff informed Narayanan that it was
“recommending that [his] tenure be revoked for (1) ‘failure to submit a
completed Disclosure of Outside Employment form as required by MSU
policy 3.325 for Academic Year 2019 (even after multiple reminders) and for
Academic Year 2020,’ 3 and (2) ‘Neglect of professional duties for failing to
_____________________
3
MSU requested Narayanan return his completed disclosures for 2019 and 2020
nine times between September 2018 and January 2020. Most of that time, he was on leave.
Narayanan returned the forms in January 2020.
4
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
meet your assigned classes for the 2019 Fall Semester.’” MSU’s President
informed Narayanan on December 9, 2019, that there was good cause to
revoke his tenure and terminate employment for neglecting his professional
duties. Narayanan then exercised his right to a due process hearing.
On April 6, 2020, the Due Process Committee held a virtual due
process hearing and unanimously decided there was good cause to revoke
Narayanan’s tenure and terminate his employment. 4 Narayanan’s
termination became effective in May 2020 when MSU’s Board of Regents
(“Board”) voted 8-0 to revoke his tenure and terminate employment. 5
Following his termination, Narayanan filed a charge for retaliation and
continued discrimination based on race, color, and national origin against
MSU with the EEOC and Texas Workforce Commission (“TWC”). He
later filed a charge with the same entities based on disability discrimination
and failure to accommodate. Narayanan filed his initial complaint under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.) (“Title VII”) with the United
_____________________
4
The Due Process Committee recommended revoking Narayanan’s tenure based
on these reasons: (1) “[Plaintiff’s] failure to return a signed contract accepting the
University’s offer for employment for the 2019–2020 academic year by the time of the first
faculty reporting day (August 19, 2019);” (2) “[Plaintiff’s] failure to report for the first day
of the 2019–2020 academic year meetings (August 19, 2019) without prior notification that
he would not be present;” (3) “[Plaintiff’s] failure to be present on the first day of class
(August 26, 2019) and failure to teach his Fall 2019 teaching assignment, in spite of being
notified of his Fall 2019 teaching assignments by the Provost (January 16, 2019 and May 13,
2019);” and (4) “[Plaintiff’s] failure to submit a properly completed Disclosure of Outside
Employment form for Academic Years 2019 and 2020 at the time of request.”
5
Of note, Narayanan’s initial suit named the Board as an additional defendant. The
Board was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. MSU argues that because the Board
was dismissed, the ADA claims are moot. Narayanan briefs the ADA issue without
addressing the mootness claim.
5
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 22, 2021. On
June 20, 2022, MSU filed a motion for summary judgment which was
subsequently granted on October 24, 2022. Narayanan timely filed his Notice
of Appeal on November 18, 2022.
II. Standard of Review
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and draw every
reasonable inference in Narayanan’s favor. Newbold v. Operator, L.L.C., 65
F.4th 175, 178 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted); Hudson v. Lincare, Inc., 58
F.4th 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is
appropriate if there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A
genuine [dispute] of material fact exists when the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Austin v.
Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
However, “[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion” by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish
the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A party
opposing summary judgment “must go beyond the pleadings and designate
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid
Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). “[C]onclusory
allegations” and “unsubstantiated assertions” will not suffice. Id. (citations
omitted). “We resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party,
but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have
submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Id.6
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
III. Discussion
We address three points regarding the district court’s opinion below:
1) the ADA claims, 2) the Title VII Discrimination claim, and 3) the Title VII
Retaliation claim.
A. The Americans with Disabilities Act Claims
The district court properly granted summary judgment regarding the
ADA claims for failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation. 6
1. ADA - Failure to Accommodate Claim
We have frequently recognized that a claimant must prove that “he is
a person who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions of his employment position.” Turco v. Hoechst Celanese
Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1093 (5th Cir. 1996). See also E.E.O.C. v. LHC Grp.,
Inc., 773 F.3d 688, 697 (5th Cir. 2014). For a failure to accommodate claim to
be successful, Narayanan must prove: “(1) the plaintiff is a ‘qualified
individual with a disability;’ (2) the disability and its consequential
limitations were ‘known’ by the covered employer; and (3) the employer
failed to make ‘reasonable accommodations’ for such known limitations.”
Feist v. La., Dep’t of Justice, Off. of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d 450, 452 (2013).
_____________________
6
In addition to the ADA claim, Narayanan brings failure to accommodate claims
under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We have
consistently found that the only difference in these claims is causation which can be found
to be immaterial. Bennett-Nelson v. Louisiana Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 454-55 (5th Cir.
2005) (“The question is whether the failure to accommodate the disability violates the
ADA; and the existence of a violation depends on whether under both the Rehabilitation
Act and the ADA, the demanded accommodation is in fact reasonable and therefore
required.”); Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 287-88 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen
ADA claims are directed at architectural barriers[] the rights and remedies are exactly the
same as those provided under the Rehabilitation Act. This circuit, as well as others, has
noted that, because the rights and remedies under both statutes are the same, case law
interpreting one statute can be applied to the other.”).
7
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
“The ADA prohibits covered employers from ‘discriminat[ing] against a
qualified individual on the basis of disability.’ Discrimination includes failure
to make ‘reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental
limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . unless
such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose
an undue hardship.’” Id. (citations omitted). The district court assumed for
its analysis that Narayanan was a qualified individual, and the parties do not
dispute that Narayanan had a disability that was known to the university. The
only question is whether MSU failed to make reasonable accommodations.
In the instant case, MSU offered accommodations of a chair available
in the teaching classroom, ergonomic office furniture, and limits on extended
travel. While Narayanan initially told MSU the accommodations were
insufficient and requested an additional leave of six to twelve months, he did
not respond to the second offer of the same accommodations. Narayanan also
failed to show that the offered accommodations were insufficient, and he did
not offer any reasonable alternative. An exception to the ADA requirement
of providing a qualified individual with reasonable accommodations exists if
the requested accommodations would cause an undue hardship. Groff v.
DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 453-73 (2023). Specifically, as cited by the district
court, “[u]ndue hardship exists when an employer is required to bear more
than a de minimis cost.” Antoine v. First Student, Inc., 713 F.3d 824, 839 (5th
Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). MSU argues that the indefinite leave request is
an undue hardship, and it was thus exempt from providing Narayanan with
more leave. We have frequently recognized that indefinite leave requests
lacking a return date, like Narayanan requested, qualifies as an undue
hardship and does not violate ADA standards. Rogers v. Int’l Marine
Terminals, 87 F.3d 755, 759–60 (5th Cir. 1996); Delaval v. PTech Drilling
Tubulars, L.L.C., 824 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2016); Reed v. Petroleum
Helicopters, Inc., 218 F.3d 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2000). In addition, MSU was
8
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
forced to cancel classes last minute and “scramble” to find additional staff.
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s opinion on the ADA failure to
accommodate claims.
2. ADA – Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
A prima face case for discrimination can be established by direct or
indirect evidence. Taylor v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 93 F.3d 155, 162 (5th Cir.
1996). If indirect evidence is used, the Court applies the McDonnell Douglas
framework. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973).
A plaintiff must show that: “1) he or she suffers from a disability; 2) he or she
is qualified for the job; 3) he or she was subject to an adverse employment
action; and 4) he or she was replaced by a non-disabled person or was treated
less favorably than non-disabled employees.” Cortez v. Raytheon Co., 663 F.
Supp. 2d 514, 525 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (citations omitted). The parties agree
that Narayanan suffers from a disability. As discussed above, the district
court assumed Narayanan was qualified for the job. His termination was an
adverse employment action. As the district court noted, Narayanan presents
no evidence that he was either replaced by a non-disabled person or was
treated less favorably than a non-disabled person. Since there was a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to terminate Narayanan, his ADA
discrimination and retaliation claims have no merit. Therefore, we affirm the
district court’s opinion on the ADA discrimination and retaliation claims.
B. Title VII Discrimination Claim
With regard to Narayanan’s Title VII discrimination claim, the
district court held that he did not show he suffered an adverse employment
action because “failure to grant [his] desired summer teaching assignments
does not rise to level of an ‘ultimate employment decision.’” In Hamilton v.
Dallas Cnty., 79 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc), we ruled that the
“ultimate employment decision” language had no basis in Title VII:
9
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
Today we hold that a plaintiff plausibly alleges a disparate-
treatment claim under Title VII if she pleads discrimination in
hiring, firing, compensation, or the “terms, conditions, or
privileges” of her employment. She need not also show an
“ultimate employment decision,” a phrase that appears
nowhere in the statute and that thwarts legitimate claims of
workplace bias.
Id. at 497.
Our decision “made clear that Title VII requires a broader reading
than our ‘ultimate employment decision’ line of cases permitted and thus
‘end[ed] that interpretative incongruity’ by removing the requirement.”
Harrison v. Brookhaven Sch. Dist., No. 21-60771, 2023 WL 6158232, at *1 (5th
Cir. Sept. 21, 2023) (citing Hamilton, 79 F.4th at 497). Additionally, here, the
district court did not consider the lost income Narayanan experienced from
MSU denying him the opportunity to teach summer classes. Lost income can
qualify as compensation under both the pre- and post-Hamilton
interpretation of “ultimate employment decision” and “terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment” if that lost income can be shown to be a
significant source of income. Hamilton, 79 F.4th at 497, 501-04; Burlington
N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 72-73 (2006) (holding that an
employee being forced to go 37 days without pay was materially adverse);
Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 523 (5th Cir. 2001)
(holding that a $2500 discontinued stipend qualifies as a compensation
decision); Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 284 (5th Cir. 2004)
(reasoning that the appellant’s lost compensation from incentives should
have been considered and summary judgment was thus inappropriate)
(abrogated by Hamilton, 79 F.4th 494). Hence, the district court should also
consider the income Narayanan lost from his denial of summer teaching
assignments. Accordingly, we remand this issue to the district court to
10
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
reconsider Narayanan’s Title VII discrimination claims in light of our recent
en banc decision in Hamilton.
C. Title VII Retaliation Claim
With regard to Narayanan’s Title VII retaliation claim, the district
court erroneously applied the “ultimate employment decision” standard
which was mandated only for discrimination claims rather than the materially
adverse standard as required under Burlington. 548 U.S. at 72-73. The court
held that “failure to grant Plaintiff desired summer teaching assignments
does not rise to [] level of an ‘ultimate employment decision.’”
Applicable to the instant case, however, Burlington holds that “a
plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the
challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well
might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a
charge of discrimination.’” Id.; see also Hudson, 58 F.4th at 231 (applying the
materially adverse standard and finding that appellant did not suffer an
adverse employment action sufficient to create a Title VII retaliation claim);
Mota, 261 F.3d at 521-23 (reasoning that the denial of both paid leave and a
one-year unpaid leave was a violation of the Title VII antiretaliation provision
and amounted to an adverse employment action); McCoy v. City of Shreveport,
492 F.3d 551, 556-61 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying the materially adverse
standard and finding that the appellant did not prove that a reasonable person
might be dissuaded from making or supporting a discrimination charged);
Wheat v. Florida, 811 F.3d 702, 708-09 (5th Cir. 2016) (denying employee a
planned pay raise did not rise to a materially adverse action); Holloway v.
Dep't of Veterans Affs., 244 F. App'x 566, 567 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Instead of the
‘ultimate employment decision’ standard, the Supreme Court held that an
employee suffers an adverse employment action if ‘a reasonable employee
would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this
11
Case: 22-11140 Document: 00516927636 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/11/2023
No. 22-11140
context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making
or supporting a charge of discrimination.’” (quoting Burlington, 548 U.S. at
68)).
In addition, the district court should consider the lost income
Narayanan incurred when MSU denied his request to teach summer classes.
Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 292, (1960) (“[I]t
needs no argument to show that fear of economic retaliation might often
operate to induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard
conditions.”).
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court
regarding the ADA claims. We VACATE the judgment of the district court
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
regarding the Title VII claims.
12