Nghiem v. Santa Clara University
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-06872
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Nghiem v. Santa Clara University, Judge Freeman declined to dismiss Claims 1–4 and dismissed Claim 5 without leave to amend.
Peter P. Nghiem’s Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Fair Employment and Housing Act claims were not dismissed. His defamation claim against Jeremy Kemp, Grace Ling, and Santa Clara University was dismissed without leave to amend.
What happened
Peter P. Nghiem, a Quarterly Adjunct Lecturer at Santa Clara University, alleged that the university and three individuals discriminated against him based on race and age, retaliated against him, and defamed him. He connected the alleged conduct to his lack of promotion and the cancellation of courses he taught.
The court declined to dismiss Nghiem’s Title VII, Section 1981, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. It dismissed the defamation claim because the allegations did not plausibly identify false statements of fact, and the court said the claim could not be amended.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman adopted the earlier recommendation in part: she adopted the recommendations concerning Claims 1–3 and Claim 5, but declined to adopt the recommendation to dismiss Claim 4.
The detailed version
- Nghiem v. Santa Clara University · No. 5:21-cv-06872
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Peter P. Nghiem sued Santa Clara University, Nam Ling, Grace Ling, and Jeremy Kemp. Nghiem alleged that the defendants engaged in harassment and defamation as a pretext for discriminating against him because of his age and Vietnamese origin, retaliating against him after he reported their conduct, denying him promotion, and canceling the courses he taught.
The First Amended Complaint asserted: (1) race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII against Santa Clara University; (2) race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Nam Ling, Jeremy Kemp, and Santa Clara University; (3) age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against Santa Clara University; (4) race and age discrimination and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act against Santa Clara University; and (5) employment-related defamation against Jeremy Kemp, Grace Ling, and Santa Clara University.
Judge Cousins issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Claims 4 and 5. Nghiem objected. Judge Freeman reviewed the recommendation independently.
Claims 1–3
The court adopted the recommendation that Claims 1, 2, and 3 were adequately pleaded. It therefore declined to dismiss those claims.
Claim 4: Fair Employment and Housing Act
The court declined to adopt the recommendation to dismiss Claim 4. It concluded that Nghiem adequately alleged age discrimination because he alleged that he was at least 40, was performing competently, suffered adverse employment actions including course cancellations, and was told by Nam Ling that he was too old for an assistant-professor position.
The court also found that Nghiem adequately alleged race discrimination based on his Vietnamese origin, the alleged employment actions, and allegations about the racial makeup of faculty hired by the department. The court further found that he adequately alleged retaliation because he reported conduct to the university’s Title IX office, suffered course cancellations, and alleged a connection between the reports and those actions.
Claim 5: Defamation
The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the defamation claim. Under California law, defamation requires, among other things, a false and unprivileged published statement of fact that refers to the plaintiff and tends to injure the plaintiff or causes special damage.
The court ruled that Nghiem did not allege a defamation claim against Jeremy Kemp because the alleged comments were disrespectful or belittling remarks and insinuations, not identified false statements of fact. As to Grace Ling, the court treated her course evaluations as opinions invited by the university, rather than plausibly false statements of fact. Because Santa Clara University’s alleged liability depended on the claims against Kemp and Ling, the defamation claim against the university also failed.
The court dismissed Claim 5 without leave to amend, stating that Nghiem had repeatedly failed to cure the pleading deficiencies through amendment.
Disposition
The court adopted the recommendations concerning Claims 1–3 and Claim 5, declined to dismiss Claims 1–3, declined to adopt the recommendation to dismiss Claim 4, and dismissed Claim 5 without leave to amend.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.