Nghiem v. Santa Clara University

Background

Peter P Nghiem was a quarterly part-time adjunct lecturer in Santa Clara University’s Department of Computer Science and Engineering from 2018 through 2020. He taught courses that were canceled during several terms because fewer than seven students were registered. He also was not rehired as a part-time lecturer and was not selected for a full-time faculty position.

Nghiem alleged that these decisions were based on his Vietnamese descent and age. He also alleged that Nam Ling told him he had not been considered for full-time openings because of his age and that the department wanted younger Ph.D. graduates. In separate incidents, Nghiem alleged that Jeremy Kemp made a disparaging comment about his qualifications and that Grace Ling posted a negative review after being recruited by Nam Ling. Nghiem asserted claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Summary judgment on discrimination claims

Summary judgment is a decision before trial when the evidence does not show a genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applied the framework under which an employer may prevail by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an employment decision, unless the employee presents evidence that the reason is a pretext for discrimination.

Santa Clara University offered the department’s policy of canceling courses with fewer than seven enrolled students as the reason for the course cancellations and Nghiem’s non-rehire. The university also presented evidence that other courses were canceled for the same reason, including courses taught by professors who were younger than Nghiem and none of whom were Vietnamese. Nghiem acknowledged that his Spring 2020 courses were canceled at the last minute because of low enrollment, and the court found that he did not provide evidence rebutting the university’s explanation.

As to the full-time position, the court considered Nam Ling’s alleged age-related statement but found it insufficient. The university presented unrebutted evidence that Ling was not on the committee that screened full-time applicants from 2017 through 2021. The court concluded that, without evidence showing how Ling would have known the reasons for the decision, his statement was a stray remark by a nonparticipant and did not establish discrimination by itself. The court also noted evidence that more than 100 applications were received, eight candidates were interviewed, and those candidates had stronger research and publication records than Nghiem. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims arising from the course cancellations, non-rehire, and rejection for a full-time position.

Summary judgment on retaliation claims

Nghiem alleged that he engaged in protected activity by filing a complaint with Santa Clara University’s Title IX Office about Kemp’s comments. He claimed that his courses were later canceled, that he was not rehired, and that Grace Ling’s negative review was connected to his complaint.

The court found no evidence of the required causal connection between Nghiem’s complaint and the employment actions. It stated that Nam Ling and Silvia Figueira were unaware of the complaint when it was made, and Kemp had no role in the alleged adverse employment decisions. The court also found Nghiem’s assertion that Grace Ling acted at Nam Ling’s direction to be unsupported. It further noted that Ling was on sabbatical when the Spring 2020 courses were canceled and that there was no evidence Grace Ling could have influenced Figueira. The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims.

Emotional-distress claims

Nghiem also asserted intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Santa Clara University and individual defendants. He argued that comments by Nam Ling and Jeremy Kemp caused lost wages, emotional distress, and physical injuries, including a cancer recurrence.

The court held that the comments did not meet the high standard for the extreme and outrageous conduct required for an intentional-infliction claim. For negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court found that Nghiem had not shown that the comments caused the alleged cancer recurrence or otherwise demonstrated the required serious emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Santa Clara University on the state-law tort claims.

Rule 56(d) motion

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), a court may delay a summary-judgment ruling or allow additional discovery when a party identifies specific facts that further discovery could uncover and that are essential to opposing summary judgment. Nghiem argued that the university had not fully answered his discovery requests.

The court denied the Rule 56(d) motion. It found that the case had been pending for more than two years, Nghiem had not deposed any individual defendant, and he had not moved to compel further discovery responses before the summary-judgment hearing. The court was not persuaded that additional discovery was likely to produce facts necessary to oppose summary judgment.

Disposition

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Santa Clara University and denied Nghiem’s Rule 56(d) motion. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.