Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 47
`
`
`
`WO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`Cynthia Sagers,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Arizona State University, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`No. CV-21-00294-PHX-DWL
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`In July 2018, Dr. Cynthia Sagers (“Dr. Sagers”) was hired by Arizona State
`
`University (“ASU”) as a tenured professor. Additionally, Dr. Sagers was named the vice
`
`president of research (“VPR”) of ASU’s Knowledge Enterprise (“KE”), which is an
`
`administrative organization within ASU that advances research, corporate engagement,
`
`entrepreneurship and innovation, strategic partnerships, and international development. As
`
`to that position, Dr. Sagers’s direct supervisor was Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan (“Dr.
`
`Panchanathan”).
`
`
`
`In this action, Dr. Sagers alleges that Dr. Panchanathan engaged in a pattern of
`
`discriminatory conduct toward female employees, including herself, and created a culture
`
`of fear and intimidation. She further alleges that she reported Dr. Panchanathan’s behavior
`
`to members of ASU’s human resources (“HR”) department in the latter half of 2019 and
`
`that, shortly thereafter, Dr. Panchanathan retaliated against her by assigning her tasks
`
`outside the scope of her employment and qualifications and then failing to renew her VPR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 47
`
`
`
`appointment. Based on these allegations, Dr. Sagers asserts retaliation and discrimination
`
`claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Panchanathan as well as similar claims under
`
`Title VII and Title IX against the Arizona Board of Regents (“ABOR”) (together with Dr.
`
`Panchanathan, “Defendants”).
`
`
`
`Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
`
`49.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Facts
`
`The following facts are derived from the parties’ summary judgment submissions
`
`and other materials in the record and are uncontroverted unless otherwise noted.
`
`In 2018, Dr. Panchanathan was the Executive Vice President (“EVP”) of KE. (Doc.
`
`49-1 at 31-32.)1 At that time, ASU President Michael Crow had set a goal of achieving
`
`$815 million in annual research expenditures by 2025. (Id. at 7.) Dr. Panchanathan was
`
`responsible for creating and implementing a strategy to reach President Crow’s goal. (Id.
`
`at 31.)
`
`
`
`To that end, in the spring of 2018, Dr. Panchanathan sought to hire a VPR to increase
`
`ASU’s research funding. (Id. at 5.) In May 2018, he approached Dr. Sagers about applying
`
`for the position. (Id. at 4-5, 40.) At the time, Dr. Sagers worked for Oregon State
`
`University. (Id. at 9-10.)
`
`
`
`Around June 2018, Dr. Sagers visited Arizona and met with various ASU
`
`administrators and other staff, including Dr. Panchanathan. (Id. at 5-6.) As relevant here,
`
`Dr. Sagers expressed to Dr. Panchanathan that she “didn’t want to be the next Betsy
`
`Cantwell” (i.e., the previous VPR of KE), meaning she “didn’t want to arrive and two years
`
`
`1
`When Dr. Sagers was hired in July 2018, KE was known as “the Office of
`Knowledge Enterprise Development.” (Doc. 49-2 at 2.) Throughout her response
`opposing summary judgment, Dr. Sagers refers to the organization as both “KED” (short
`for “Knowledge Enterprise Development”) and “KE.” (See, e.g., Doc. 54 at 1, 4.) During
`her deposition, Dr. Sagers clarified that KED and KE are the same organization. (Doc. 49-
`1 at 6 [explaining that “KE . . . was then called K-E-D, KED. And so, just for the record,
`the office changed names soon after I got there”].)
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 47
`
`
`
`later be fired.” (Id. at 8, 40-41.)2
`
`
`
`On July 27, 2018, Dr. Sagers accepted a position as both the VPR of KE and a
`
`tenured professor in ASU’s College of Integrative Sciences and Arts. (Doc. 49-2 at 2-3.)
`
`The VPR position was a one-year administrative appointment, “renewable contingent upon
`
`satisfactory performance and the needs of the university.” (Id. at 2.)3 As VPR, Dr. Sagers
`
`was responsible for helping ASU increase its funding expenditures by, among other things,
`
`“[d]evelop[ing] and execut[ing] a strategy to maximize the research productivity of faculty
`
`and academic units to ensure continued growth of the ASU research enterprise.” (Doc.
`
`49-1 at 7; Doc. 49-2 at 2.) To that end, one of Dr. Sagers’s responsibilities was to help
`
`increase the number of funding proposals in an effort to achieve President Crow’s goal of
`
`$815 million in research expenditures by 2025. (Doc. 49-1 at 6.)
`
`
`
`For context, at all relevant times, KE classified research projects for which ASU
`
`receives funding into four tiers, generally organized by dollar value. (Id. at 36.) The parties
`
`dispute whether clear boundaries existed between tiers. (Id. at 19, 36-37.)4 Dr. Sagers was
`
`recruited and hired to handle “Tier 1 and Tier 2” projects while Dr. Neil Woodbury, ASU’s
`
`“chief science and technology officer,” was responsible for Tiers 3 and 4. (Doc. 49-1 at
`
`19, 34; Doc. 54-1 at 70.) However, Dr. Sagers’s and Dr. Woodbury’s responsibilities
`
`overlapped such that, at times, the two “would “attend[] the same meetings or participate[]
`
`in the same project teams.” (Doc. 54-1 at 70. See also id. [“Dr. Sagers was responsible
`
`for Tier 1 and Tier 2 research projects. If those are successful, they can lend themselves to
`
`Tier 3 and Tier 4 projects. Tier 1, Tier 2, being Sagers[], Tier 3, Tier 4 being Woodbury,
`
`
`2
`As of June 2018, Dr. Sagers had not spoken with Dr. Cantwell about why she had
`been removed from the VPR position. (Doc. 49-1 at 9.) At some point after Dr. Sagers
`became VPR, she had a short conversation with Dr. Cantwell, who said that she had been
`removed from the position because she had a “difficult relationship” with Dr.
`Panchanathan. (Id.)
`3
`The administrative appointment became effective September 20, 2018. (Doc. 49-2
`at 2.)
`4
`Dr. Panchanathan acknowledged that it was “very hard to draw a hard and fast line
`of boundaries” but provided general dollar ranges for the tiers (Doc. 49-1 at 36-37),
`whereas Dr. Sagers testified that “[i]t’s unclear what the tiers actually meant” (id. at 19).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 47
`
`
`
`so working hand-in-glove, so to speak.”].)5
`
`
`
`KE’s 2018 fiscal year ended on June 30, 2019. (Doc. 49-1 at 48-49.) The parties
`
`dispute whether Dr. Sagers’s job performance was satisfactory as of June 2019 (as well as
`
`whether it could be fairly and accurately measured after less than a year on the job) but, in
`
`any event, Dr. Panchanathan renewed Dr. Sagers’s VPR appointment. (Doc. 49-1 at 46
`
`[Q: “So Dr. Sagers was appointed effective . . . September 20th of 2018. She then retained
`
`that role through the next fiscal year of 2019. Correct?” A: “Correct”].)
`
`
`
`Also in June 2019, Stacey Esposito, a member of Dr. Sagers’s staff, began
`
`experiencing “issues” working with Dr. Sagers. (Doc. 49-3 at 20.) Among other things,
`
`Esposito testified that Dr. Sagers would make “negative comments” about team members
`
`and, in one instance, dismissed one of Esposito’s ideas as nonsensical but later shared the
`
`idea at a meeting. (Id. at 20-21.) In August 2019, Esposito felt that Dr. Sagers’s negative
`
`comments had increased in frequency and went to “employee assistance” to discuss her
`
`concerns with “one of the counselors.” (Id. at 21.) Between August and October 2019,
`
`Esposito attended six sessions with employee assistance. (Id. at 22.)
`
`
`
`In 2019, Elaina Harrington was the HR director for KE. (Id. at 3.) In this role,
`
`Harrington held regular one-on-one meetings with the members of Dr. Panchanathan’s
`
`executive team, including Dr. Sagers. (Id. at 6.)
`
`
`
`On August 28, 2019, during one such meeting with Harrington, Dr. Sagers voiced
`
`concerns about the working environment at KE. More specifically, Dr. Sagers reported a
`
`“culture of fear” in the office. (Doc. 54-1 at 8.) Dr. Sagers described the complaint as
`
`“less about [Dr. Panchanathan] and more about the climate of the office” but noted that,
`
`
`5
`Acknowledging this overlap, Adriana Kuiper, Dr. Panchanathan’s chief of staff,
`testified that, in her view, it might have been helpful (at least in some instances) for Dr.
`Panchanathan to provide Dr. Sagers and Dr. Woodbury with clearer guidance “on roles and
`responsibilities for . . . specific project[s].” (Doc. 54-1 at 69-70.) However, Dr.
`Panchanathan testified that this overlap was intentional—he “never wanted Dr. Woodbury
`to function independently, because . . . Woodbury’s role is to make sure that he interfaces
`with the VPR.” (Doc. 49-1 at 65. See also id. [“[I]f you want to be successful in tier three
`and tier four, you need the muscle of tier one and tier two. . . . I always advised [Dr.
`Woodbury to] . . . go to Dr. Sagers, seek her help and advice so . . . it is a collaborative
`effort.”].)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 47
`
`
`
`“as the head of the office,” Dr. Panchanathan was “responsible” for the “working
`
`environment.” (Doc. 49-1 at 11, 13.) During her deposition, Dr. Sagers elaborated that
`
`KE’s work environment was “toxic” and asserted that “many people” in the office were
`
`“anxious,” in part because it was a “demanding” job but also because there was a pattern
`
`of “abrupt dismissals” and people were “fearful they’d be fired if they didn’t tow the line.”
`
`(Id. at 13.) Harrington provided a similar description of the meeting. (Doc. 49-3 at 6
`
`[“[W]e were talking about a culture of fear. . . . [W]e were discussing . . . how it was
`
`uncomfortable and that employees seemed to be fearful.”].) Harrington also testified that
`
`“employees were fearful” because two supervisors—Dr. Panchanathan and a female
`
`colleague—would raise their voices at times. (Id. at 6-7.) However, Harrington clarified
`
`that no formal complaints were made about Dr. Panchanathan’s yelling—instead, it was
`
`“[k]ind of like talk around the office, but nothing brought to [HR].” (Id. at 7.) Dr. Sagers
`
`and Harrington also discussed “what [could] be done to make [office culture] better.” (Id.
`
`[Harrington: “I knew we were going to have a Gallup survey coming in and Dr. Sagers was
`
`also talking about a retreat that was going to happen, so those were the two things that we
`
`touched on. . . . Dr. Sagers had hoped that that would be a big discussion at this retreat”].)
`
`
`
`At some point after the August 28, 2019 meeting between Harrington and Dr.
`
`Sagers, a “survey” was distributed to KE’s employees. (Doc. 49-1 at 14-15.) The survey
`
`was meant “to get at the culture of fear.” (Id. at 15.)
`
`
`
`As VPR of KE, Dr. Sagers also met with Dr. Panchanathan on a regular basis. (Doc.
`
`49-1 at 40 [Dr. Panchanathan, describing “weekly” or “biweekly” meetings with the
`
`members of his executive team].) On September 4, 2019,6 during one such meeting, Dr.
`
`Panchanathan suggested that Dr. Sagers focus on Research Experience for Undergraduate
`
`awards (“REUs”), which are small grants (i.e., less than $10,000 each) attached to
`
`preexisting National Science Foundation (“NSF”) grants that go through a truncated review
`
`
`6
`Dr. Panchanathan testified this meeting occurred “somewhere in 2019. Earlier part
`of 2019.” (Doc. 49-1 at 52.) To the extent the date is disputed, the Court takes as true Dr.
`Sagers’s testimony that the meeting occurred on September 4, 2019. (Doc. 49-1 at 18.)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 47
`
`
`
`process. (Doc. 49-1 at 18-19, 51-52; Doc. 54-1 at 14-16.)7 The parties agree that it would
`
`take a substantial number of REUs to generate significant funding (Doc. 49-1 at 65) but
`
`dispute whether focusing on REUs was a viable strategy for increasing research
`
`expenditures to meet President Crow’s goal. (Doc. 49-1 at 51-52 [Dr. Panchanathan,
`
`describing the REUs as “easier targets” and “low-hanging fruit” because they operate as
`
`supplements to preexisting grants and “don’t go through a process of review like all the
`
`other proposals for months”]; Doc. 54-1 at 14-15 [Dr. Sagers, asserting that in order to
`
`“move the needle at all, we would’ve had to get a thousand or thousands of [REUs].· And
`
`the NSF would not make those awards, so it simply was not . . . a viable strategy to increase
`
`research expenditures”].) During the meeting, Dr. Sagers “pushed back” on the assignment
`
`by telling Dr. Panchanathan that the strategy “·wouldn’t move the needle and . . . was a
`
`waste of a VPR salary.” (Doc. 54-1 at 16-17. See also id. at 17 [“I just said that it wasn’t
`
`worth my time to be working on $5,000 awards.”].)
`
`
`
`On October 3 and 4, 2019, KE held a senior leadership retreat. (Doc. 57-1 at 9;
`
`Doc. 49-3 at 30-31.)8 Both Dr. Sagers and Dr. Panchanathan attended. (Doc. 49-3 at 8.)
`
`During the retreat, “[t]he culture of fear was a big topic.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`On October 11, 2019, Esposito complained to both Harrington and Adriana Kuiper,
`
`Dr. Panchanathan’s chief of staff, about Dr. Sagers’s behavior. (Doc. 49-3 at 9, 22-23, 37.)
`
`The same day, Kari Buice, Dr. Sagers’s administrative specialist, lodged a similar
`
`
`7
`Dr. Sagers described the REUs as “less than $10,000 each.” (Doc. 54-1 at 14.) Dr.
`Panchanathan described them as between $8,000 and $12,000. (Doc. 49-1 at 65.) To the
`extent the average dollar amount of an REU is disputed, it is not material to the Court’s
`analysis.
`8
`Defendants attached two exhibits to their reply brief. (Doc. 57-1.) Defendants
`explain that the exhibits—a portion of Dr. Sagers’s deposition transcript and some excerpts
`from Dr. Sagers’s journal—were submitted to rebut Dr. Sagers’s allegation that Dr.
`Panchanathan “discriminated against her or other KE employees based on gender.” (Doc.
`57 at 3 n.2.) Given that Dr. Sagers does not object to the exhibits, and that they address
`arguments raised in Dr. Sagers’s response brief, the Court may consider the exhibits for
`purposes of summary judgment. TSI Inc. v. Azbil BioVigilant Inc., 2014 WL 880408, *1
`(D. Ariz. 2014) (“While a party may not file ‘new’ evidence with a reply, it may file
`‘rebuttal’ evidence to contravene arguments first raised by the non-moving party in its
`opposition.”). In any event, the information provided by the new exhibits is not material
`to any of the conclusions in this order—even without it, summary judgment would be
`appropriate.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 47
`
`
`
`complaint. (Id. at 9, 11-12, 29.)9 In broad strokes, both Esposito and Buice complained
`
`that Dr. Sagers tended to give conflicting instructions (and then criticize employees for
`
`following those instructions), would lash out verbally, and sometimes dismissed their ideas
`
`as nonsensical only to subsequently raise the same ideas as her own. (Doc. 54-1 at 57-59;
`
`Doc. 49-3 at 9, 21-22, 31, 37.) Esposito also complained that Dr. Sagers frequently
`
`disparaged colleagues. (Doc. 49-3 at 20-23.)
`
`
`
`Shortly thereafter, on October 14, 2019, Harrington and Kuiper met with Dr. Sagers
`
`to discuss the complaints. (Doc. 49-3 at 13.) Kuiper described Dr. Sagers’s reaction as
`
`“hurt” and “surprised” and testified that she too was surprised by the allegations because
`
`her “interactions with Dr. Sagers had always been pleasant.” (Doc. 54-1 at 63, 79-80.)
`
`Kuiper further testified that, when Dr. Panchanathan heard about the complaints, he was
`
`also surprised. (Id. at 80 [“I believe that [Dr. Panchanathan] shared the same opinion as
`
`me, that his interactions with Dr. Sagers were always very pleasant.”].)10
`
`
`
`The same day, Dr. Panchanathan spoke with Dr. Sagers about a “360 review.” (Doc.
`
`57-1 at 9; Doc. 49-1 at 21.)11 A “360 review” is “a survey [that] . . . asks your peers and
`
`people above you and on the hierarchy within an organization above you, the level that you
`
`are and below you, to get a better perspective of how people see you.” (Doc. 49-3 at 14.
`
`See also id. [“[I]t’s just another tool that ASU has for managers to understand how they
`
`are perceived and shows them their blind spots and areas of strengths, as well.”].) In
`
`
`9
`According to Kuiper, Buice originally complained to her direct supervisor, who
`reported the complaint to Kuiper, “so it was an escalation through supervisors, essentially.”
`(Doc. 54-1 at 61.) However, “in the ordinary course,” HR complaints went to Harrington
`and/or Tamara Deuser, another member of KE’s HR department. (Id. at 61-62.) Buice
`testified that she decided to speak with HR about Dr. Sagers at Esposito’s suggestion.
`(Doc. 49-3 at 30 [“She wanted me to talk to HR because there [were] things that were going
`on between . . . Dr. Sagers, [Esposito], and myself. That she was struggling with. We kind
`of both were struggling, but how I handle my struggles was a little different than how she
`handled hers. She was struggling with things, and she knew that I knew there were things
`going on. She knew I had issues. So she said it was probably best if I talked to HR.”].)
`10
`It is not clear when Dr. Panchanathan was alerted to Esposito’s and Buice’s
`complaints about Dr. Sagers. Dr. Sagers testified that, on October 28, 2019, she became
`aware that Kuiper and/or Harrington had spoken with Dr. Panchanathan about the
`complaints. (Doc. 49-1 at 12.)
`11
`Harrington testified that during the October 14, 2019 meeting with Dr. Sagers,
`Kuiper also suggested that Dr. Sagers complete a “360 review.” (Doc. 54-1 at 124.)
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 8 of 47
`
`
`
`response, Dr. Sagers informed him that she “had just done one” a few months earlier. (Doc.
`
`49-1 at 21.) During her deposition, Dr. Sagers explained that her response was meant to
`
`suggest that “sending out . . . a second 360 within six months’ time would send a red flag
`
`to everyone [she] was trying to work with.” (Id. See also id. [“I assumed he would
`
`appreciate that. He knows . . . that it was a punitive 360.”].)12
`
`
`
`On October 22, 2019, Harrington, Kuiper, and Dr. Sagers met with Esposito and
`
`then with Buice. (Doc. 49-1 at 11; Doc. 49-3 at 13-14.) Esposito had previously expressed
`
`to Harrington that she no longer wanted to work with Dr. Sagers, while Buice had stated
`
`that she was willing to continue working with Dr. Sagers if Dr. Sagers could “actually
`
`change.” (Doc. 49-3 at 11-12.) The meeting with Esposito was short and “awkward” and
`
`Esposito was subsequently reassigned. (Id. at 11, 23-24.) The meeting with Buice was
`
`“uncomfortable” but productive. (Id. at 14.)
`
`
`
`Thereafter, Kuiper started meeting regularly with Dr. Sagers and Harrington,
`
`together, to focus on personnel matters. (Doc. 54-1 at 63, 65.)13 Based on those meetings,
`
`Kuiper got the sense that Dr. Sagers “was trying to make progress on those interpersonal
`
`issues.” (Id. at 65.)
`
`
`
`In November 2019, still frustrated with Dr. Sagers’s performance, Dr. Panchanathan
`
`“beg[an] talking to [Dr. Sagers] about his dissatisfaction.” (Doc. 49-1 at 18.) During his
`
`deposition, Dr. Panchanathan testified that he was specifically dissatisfied with “[t]he
`
`efforts that were being taken, particularly with meeting with faculty, deans, and the
`
`feedback that [he] was getting,” as well as “the [dollar] volume of proposals that were
`
`going out” and “the number of [principal investigators (‘PIs’)] being involved in the
`
`projects.” (Id. at 46. See also id. at 70 [“[C]learly we are trending the wrong direction.
`
`
`12
`Dr. Sagers described herself as “blindsided” by Esposito’s and Buice’s complaints
`and “pleased by the outcome of [her] 360, adding further confusion.” (Doc. 54-1 at 20.)
`Viewed in the light most favorable to Dr. Sagers, this testimony suggests that she
`completed a second 360 review following Esposito’s and Buice’s complaints and, at least
`in her view, the results were positive.
`13
`Previously, Kuiper had regular one-on-one meetings with Dr. Sagers to “follow[]
`up on assignments or tasks that Dr. Panchanathan would have given to [Dr. Sagers] to
`understand the status, where things stood, what issues may have arisen.” (Doc. 49-3 at 39.)
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 9 of 47
`
`
`
`And the month over month data from [those] years is very, very illustrative and also very
`
`disturbing. . . . We need to [sic] better in tier l and tier 2 because that’s where the bread
`
`and butter is in terms of making sure that you get more of these done.”].) However, the
`
`specific topics discussed during the November 2019 meeting are not clear from the record.
`
`
`
`At some point in November or December 2019, an outside consultant named Dr.
`
`David Colarossi was hired to evaluate KE’s culture. (Doc. 49-3 at 8; Doc. 54-1 at 41.) Dr.
`
`Colarossi reviewed KE’s charter, held one-on-one interviews with key personnel
`
`(including Dr. Sagers, Dr. Panchanathan, Harrington, and Kuiper), and aggregated and
`
`analyzed the “collected data.” (Doc. 54-1 at 43.) Dr. Colarossi also produced a “Culture
`
`Evaluation” presentation, which described his findings. (Id. at 37-54.) As for KE’s culture,
`
`the presentation notes the breadth of KE’s work, that Dr. Panchanathan is “a highly
`
`innovative and change-oriented leader,” and that “[t]here is expectation that team members
`
`are able to shoulder a large work load without a great deal of managerial oversight.” (Id.
`
`at 45-48.) The presentation also provides: “Given the pace of work, team members do not
`
`have a great deal of free time for casual relationship development. In the same way, there
`
`is less of an opportunity for emotional processing and rehashing of conflict. Productivity
`
`and performance are the priorities. . . . High-performing team members show interpersonal
`
`savvy but are unlikely to demonstrate a great deal of sensitivity. Compared to other
`
`companies, there is less emphasis on empathy, interpersonal tact and caution.” (Id. at 49.)
`
`As for “opportunities for development,” the presentation identifies two issues: (1) “a lack
`
`of clarity around expectations”; and (2) “a culture of fear growing among lower level
`
`employees.” (Id. at 51-53.)
`
`
`
`On January 2, 2020, Dr. Panchanathan informed Dr. Sagers that her administrative
`
`appointment as VPR of KE would not be renewed and that, effective January 30, 2020, her
`
`appointment would “change” to “Vice President of Knowledge Enterprise Development
`
`(KED) Campus Director at the Polytechnic Campus” for six months, at which point she
`
`would return to full-time faculty status. (Doc. 49-1 at 23. See also id. at 56 [explaining
`
`that Dr. Sagers “still carried the title of the VPR for six more months” but her “assignment
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 10 of 47
`
`
`
`of duties” changed to “the Polytechnic campus”].)14 The parties dispute what Dr.
`
`Panchanathan said during this meeting about why Dr. Sagers’s appointment was not being
`
`renewed. (Id. at 55-56 [Dr. Panchanathan, testifying that the meeting was “about
`
`performance and the fact that we were not achieving what we were achieving” and that
`
`although “[t]he personnel issues contributed” to his decision, he did not tell Dr. Sagers that
`
`fact]; Doc. 54-1 at 20 [Dr. Sagers, testifying that Dr. Panchanathan provided two reasons
`
`for the nonrenewal: “the HR issue and downturn in proposals”].)15
`
`
`
`After Dr. Sagers transitioned to her new role, Dr. Woodbury took over her
`
`responsibilities on an interim basis (and retained his own duties as well). (Doc. 49-3 at
`
`38.)
`
`
`
`In early July 2020, Dr. Panchanathan began a leave of absence from ASU to serve
`
`as the director of NSF. (Doc. 49-1 at 69.) Dr. Woodbury served as interim EVP until
`
`February 2021, when Dr. Sally Morton was hired as “a permanent EVP.” (Doc. 49-3 at
`
`38.)16
`
`
`
`In the fall of 2021, Matt Hulver was hired as VPR of KE. (Id.)
`
`II.
`
`Procedural History
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 17, 2021, Dr. Sagers initiated this action. (Doc. 1.)
`
`On July 2, 2021, Dr. Sagers filed her operative pleading, the First Amended
`
`Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 16.) The FAC asserts four causes of action: (1) a claim under
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Panchanathan in his individual capacity, premised on the
`
`allegation that Dr. Panchanathan violated Dr. Sagers’s First and Fourteenth Amendment
`
`rights; (2) a state-law claim against Dr. Panchanathan under A.R.S. § 38-532, an Arizona
`
`whistleblowing statute; (3) a Title VII gender discrimination claim against both Dr.
`
`
`14
`Ultimately, Dr. Sagers’ administrative appointment (and thus, her administrative
`salary) was extended several times until November 27, 2020. (Doc. 49-1 at 24-25.)
`15
`The portion of Dr. Sagers’s deposition lodged at page 20 of Doc. 54-1 does not
`indicate whether counsel or Dr. Sagers provided this description of the January 2, 2020
`meeting, although context suggests the speaker was reading a written summary of the
`meeting.
`16
`As of August 2022, Dr. Woodbury was again serving as the chief science and
`technology officer. (Doc. 49-3 at 38.)
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 11 of 47
`
`
`
`Panchanathan and ABOR; and (4) a Title IX gender discrimination claim against both Dr.
`
`Panchanathan and ABOR. (Id.)
`
`
`
`On July 16, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss Count Two in its entirety and
`
`Counts Three and Four as they pertain to Dr. Panchanathan. (Doc. 17.) After a full briefing
`
`(Docs. 18, 19), the Court granted Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 20.) Thus, “Dr. Sagers’s only
`
`remaining claims are (1) a § 1983 claim in Count One against Dr. Panchanathan; (2) a Title
`
`VII claim in Count Three against ABOR; and (3) a Title IX claim in Count Four against
`
`ABOR.” (Id. at 10.)
`
`
`
`On November 7, 2022, Defendants filed the pending amended motion for summary
`
`judgment as to Dr. Sagers’s remaining three claims. (Doc. 49.) The motion is now fully
`
`briefed. (Docs. 54, 57.) Neither side requested oral argument.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`“The court shall grant summary judgment if [a] movant shows that there is no
`
`I.
`
`
`
`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 fact is ‘material’ only if it might affect the outcome of
`
`the case, and a dispute is ‘genuine’ only if a reasonable trier of fact could resolve the issue
`
`in the non-movant’s favor.” Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d
`
`1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014). The court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable
`
`to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inference in the nonmoving party’s favor.”
`
`Rookaird v. BNSF Ry. Co., 908 F.3d 451, 459 (9th Cir. 2018). “Summary judgment is
`
`improper where divergent ultimate inferences may reasonably be drawn from the
`
`undisputed facts.” Fresno Motors, 771 F.3d at 1125 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`A party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing
`
`the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,
`
`depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,
`
`if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “In order to carry its burden of
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element
`
`of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have
`
`enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.”
`
`Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). “If . . .
`
`[the] moving party carries its burden of production, the nonmoving party must produce
`
`evidence to support its claim or defense.” Id. at 1103.
`
`
`
`“If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue
`
`of material fact, the moving party wins the motion for summary judgment.” Id. There is
`
`no issue for trial unless enough evidence favors the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “If the evidence is merely colorable or is not
`
`significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50 (internal
`
`citations omitted). At the same time, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed,
`
`and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. “[I]n ruling on a
`
`motion for summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence presented through the
`
`prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.” Id. at 254. Thus, “the trial judge’s summary
`
`judgment inquiry as to whether a genuine issue exists will be whether the evidence
`
`presented is such that a jury applying that evidentiary standard could reasonably find for
`
`either the plaintiff or the defendant.” Id. at 255.
`
`II.
`
`Retaliation Claims
`
`
`
`In each of her three remaining claims (§ 1983, Title VII, Title IX), Dr. Sagers alleges
`
`both retaliation and disparate treatment based on gender. The Court begins by discussing
`
`the retaliation component of each claim, while acknowledging that each claim is ultimately
`
`governed by distinct legal standards.
`
`
`
`In broad strokes, Dr. Sagers’s retaliation theory is that she reported “Dr.
`
`Panchanathan’s discriminatory and illegal conduct towards female members of the KE” to
`
`HR and, in retaliation, was removed from her position as VPR of KE. (Doc. 54 at 2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`…
`
`…
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00294-DWL Document 58 Filed 08/14/23 Page 13 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`First Amendment Retaliation
`
`“To establish a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff must
`
`prove that (1) he engaged in protected speech; (2) the defendants took an ‘adverse
`
`employment action’ against him; and (3) his speech was a ‘substantial or motivating’ factor
`
`for the adverse employment action.” Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist. #114, 56 F.4th 767,
`
`776 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). “If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burdens
`
`of evidence and persuasion shift to the Defendants to show that the balance of interests
`
`justified their adverse employment decision.” Id. (cleaned up). “That is, a defendant can
`
`avoi