Zhou v. Southern Utah Univ. ( 2005 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 12 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WEI-KANG ZHOU, Dr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-4112
(D.C. No. 2:01-CV-474-S)
SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY, (D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellee,
and
STEVEN D. BENNION, President;
D. RAY ROUTZEL, Provost;
CHARLES L. METTEN, Dean of
Performing and Visual Arts; BART
SHANKLIN, Music Department Chair,
Defendants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This appeal arises from a suit filed by Appellant Wei-Kang Zhou alleging
discrimination and breach of contract by his former employer, Southern Utah
University. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
University. Nearly one year later, Zhou moved for relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court denied this motion. We
affirm.
I.
According to the allegations in his amended complaint, Zhou is a
Chinese-born American citizen. In August 2000, he was hired by the University
as an assistant professor of music, with responsibility for directing the school
orchestra as well as teaching classes. The term of his employment contract was
one academic year, subject to renewal.
When Zhou began working for the University, the chair of the music
department, Bart Shanklin, promptly deprived him of an assignment that would
have allowed him to earn extra pay. Shanklin also assigned evaluators to observe
Zhou, allegedly in response to a student complaint. White faculty members were
-2-
not subjected to the same treatment. When Zhou complained that he was being
treated unfairly, Shanklin recharacterized the “evaluation” as an “adjudication.”
R., Doc. 28 at 4 (quotations omitted). In February 2001, the University advised
Zhou that it would not renew his contract because he had received poor
performance reviews.
After Zhou received the non-renewal letter, Shanklin’s mistreatment of
Zhou escalated. Ultimately, Zhou alleges, Shanklin falsely accused Zhou of
attempting to disrupt a recital in May 2001, resulting in Zhou being arrested by
the campus police; in response to this incident, the University suspended Zhou
with pay for the final five days of his contract.
Zhou sued. As amended, his complaint alleged that (i) the University
discriminated against Zhou based on national origin when it refused to renew his
contract; (ii) the University unlawfully retaliated against Zhou for complaining
about the discrimination he experienced; (iii) Shanklin harassed Zhou based on
his ethnicity; and (iv) the University breached its employment contract with Zhou.
After discovery, the University moved for summary judgment. The district court
granted this motion on May 7, 2003, ruling that (i) Zhou could not succeed on his
discrimination claim because he failed to rebut the University’s assertion that it
declined to renew Zhou’s contract based on poor job performance, as reflected in
the negative evaluations by his peers; (ii) the University did not engage in any act
-3-
constituting an adverse employment action after Zhou first engaged in protected
conduct, and Zhou therefore could not prevail on his retaliation claim; (iii) Zhou
did not present any evidence of racial or ethnic animus to support his harassment
claim; and (iv) the University complied with all terms of its contract with Zhou.
Zhou appealed from this judgment, but his notice of appeal was untimely and his
appeal was therefore dismissed.
On May 6, 2004, Zhou filed his Rule 60(b) motion, which made the
following contentions:
(1) The University’s assertion that it declined to renew Zhou’s
contract based on poor job performance was contradicted by
Zhou’s colleague’s sworn declaration that the signature on his
evaluation was forged and by expert testimony stating that
Zhou performed well in the concerts they viewed on videotape.
To the extent that the University presented false reasons to
justify its refusal to renew Zhou’s contract, this gives rise to
an inference of discriminatory animus that supports both
Zhou’s discrimination claim and his harassment claim.
(2) The fact that Shanklin made a false report for the purpose of
having Zhou arrested supports Zhou’s discrimination,
retaliation, and harassment claims.
(3) The district court made two errors in rejecting Zhou’s
retaliation claim. First, it found that Zhou first complained
about discrimination in March 2001, when in fact his first
complaint was aired in October 2000. Second, the University
responded with numerous adverse employment actions that
began in October 2000 and continued beyond March 2001.
(4) The University violated the letter and spirit of its contract with
Zhou, and engaged in bad faith, by subjecting Zhou to an
-4-
unfair evaluation process and producing fraudulent documents
to justify its refusal to renew Zhou’s contract.
The district court summarily denied this motion. This appeal followed.
II.
Rule 60(b) permits a district court to vacate or modify its judgment on any
of the following grounds:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Relief under Rule 60(b) “is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.” LaFleur v. Teen Help , 342 F.3d 1145, 1153 (10th Cir. 2003)
(quotations omitted). Thus, “[a] plaintiff must overcome a higher hurdle to obtain
relief from a post-judgment motion than on direct appeal from a judgment.” Id.We review a decision denying a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion, and we
will reverse such a decision “only if we find a complete absence of a reasonable
basis and are certain that the decision is wrong.” Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy Dist. v. Norton , 294 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2002) (alteration
and quotation omitted).
-5-
Having examined the briefs and relevant portions of the record, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s
Rule 60(b) motion. We further find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal
to conduct a hearing on Zhou’s motion. See Anderson v. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs. , 907 F.2d 936, 952 (10th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-6-