Employment: VCU prevails on professor’s retaliation claim

Where a professor alleged a university retaliated against her after she complained about race discrimination, but there was no evidence in the record showing that VCU’s proffered reasons were false, and that retaliation was the real reason why her appointment was not renewed, the university prevailed on the claim.

Background

Dr. Muthoni Imungi was a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, or VCU, In June 2020, she was informed that her supplemental administrative appointment would not be renewed. Dr. Imungi alleges that this nonrenewal was unlawful retaliation for her complaints of race discrimination under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the university.

Analysis

Dr. Imungi has not identified evidence in the record that would allow her to prove both that VCU’s proffered reason was “false and that retaliation was the real reason” her appointment was not renewed.

Dr. Imungi responds that there is sufficient temporal proximity between her statements in February and March of 2020 and her nonrenewal in June of 2020 to support an inference of a causal link between the two. As the district court noted, however, Dr. Imungi admits that Dean Angell no longer wanted Dr. Imungi to serve as Director starting in the fall of 2019, when she asked Dr. Imungi to step down – months before Dr. Imungi engaged in any protected activity. That order of events bears on the causation question, and it affects any inference of retaliation that might otherwise arise from proximity between Dr. Imungi’s complaints and her nonrenewal.

Even assuming that Dr. Imungi could rely on temporal proximity to establish an initial inference in favor of causation, VCU still would be entitled to summary judgment. That is because she cannot show that VCU’s proffered non-retaliatory reasons for her nonrenewal were pretextual – that they were not the “real reasons” for her nonrenewal, and that she was in fact the “victim of intentional retaliation.”

Dean Angell did not renew Dr. Imungi because of long-standing concerns about her job performance: her ineffectiveness in managing staff, difficulties collaborating with others, failure to build and support relationships with other stakeholders and refusal to take an active role in the online field program. Dr. Imungi argues that Dean Angell was incorrect, and that she was a top performer who was highly rated prior to her review in June 2020.

But Dr. Imungi cannot prevail on her pretext argument merely by “disput[ing] the merits” of Dean Angell’s performance appraisal without identifying evidence that calls into question Dean Angell’s belief in her assessment. And the evidence Dr. Imungi relies on to counter Dean Angell’s stated performance concerns is mostly positive feedback from a 2017 peer committee and a 2018 evaluation by the interim dean. That is not enough to create a genuine dispute as to whether Dean Angell – the relevant decisionmaker – had a negative view of Dr. Imungi’s job performance two to three years later when she chose not to renew Dr. Imungi.

The only evidence Dr. Imungi cites to show that Dean Angell herself believed Dr. Imungi was performing well is the June 2019 evaluation in which Dean Angell gave Dr. Imungi a 4.0 rating. That is indeed relevant evidence. But Dr. Imungi offers no response to VCU’s explanations for why it cannot support a finding of pretext in this case.

VCU’s second rationale for the nonrenewal is that Dean Angell wanted someone who was better aligned with, and willing to work toward, the dean’s vision. Dr. Imungi argues that this rationale is pretextual because it reflects subjective criteria. But the use of subjective criteria in employment decisions is not by itself evidence of pretext. Even if subjective criteria may sometimes be used to mask improper reasons for an action, Dr. Imungi offers no evidence that any subjective component of Dean Angell’s vision was used in that way here.

Dr. Imungi next argues that VCU adopted “shifting explanations” for her nonrenewal, with VCU emphasizing incompatible “visions” rather than performance concerns as its justification. But the record shows no such inconsistency here. Finally, Dr. Imungi argues that she can show pretext based on alleged deviations by VCU from its normal practices and procedures, claiming that it is unusual for a Dean to remove an administrative Director. There is no record evidence to support this conclusion.

Affirmed.

Dissenting opinion

Wynn, J., dissenting:

I find that the facts of this case present a much closer question than the majority opinion acknowledges. Because I believe that there are material facts in dispute, I would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Imungi v. Virginia Commonwealth University, Case No. 23-1648, Sept. 10, 2025. 4th Cir. (Harris), from EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). Briana Leah Scholar for Appellant. William Ryan Waddell for Appellee. VLW 025-2-365. 23 pp.