Hayatdavoudi v. Univ LA Sys Bd Trst

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 00-30389 Summary Calendar _______________

ASODOLLAH HAYATAVOUDI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHWESTERN LOUISIANA,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (97-CV-1846) _________________________ November 27, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and Asodollah Hayatavoudi appeals a summary DENNIS, Circuit Judges. judgment in favor of the University of Loui- siana System Board of Trustees and the Uni- JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:* versity of Southwestern Louisiana2 (collec

* (...continued) R. 47.5.4. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be 2 We take judicial notice that the University of published and is not precedent except under the Southwestern Louisiana has since changed its name limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. (continued...)

tively, the “University”) on his title VII claim was U.S. born.” Second, Hayatavoudi com- of employment discrimination. Because we plains about unfavorable performance ratings agree with the district court that Hayatavoudi from supervisors, resulting in lost raises. adduced insufficient evidence of discrimination Third, he objects to the 1994 expiration of his to allow a reasonable jury to find the Uni- endowed professorship, the revocation of a versity liable, we affirm. research stipend, and the alleged failure to pay for consulting work. Fourth, he claims he was I. subjected to “harsher working conditions” to Hayatavoudi, an Iranian-American of the “discourage him from continuing in his posi- Shiite Moslem faith, is a tenured professor in tion.” Fifth, he alleges that Ponter and Reike the petroleum engineering department, headed “continuously [made] defamatory remarks” by Herman Reike, who joined the University in about him to students and faculty. 1994.3 Hayatavoudi has taught at the Uni- versity since 1980, except for periods of time In addition to adverse actions, Hayatavoudi he spent on sabbatical at Stanford University alleges instances of racial harassment. The and on leave because of an injury. With one first is a comment made by a colleagueSSwho exception, however, the events relevant to this has since transferred from the petroleum en- appeal occurred after 1992. gineering department to the chemical engin- eering departmentSSduring the Iran hostage Hayatavoudi alleges several adverse em- crisis of the early 1980’s, in which the col- ployment actions.4 First, he complains that in league called Hayatavoudi “Ayatolla Asodol- 1994, his supervising dean, Anthony Ponter, lah.” Hayatavoudi also alleges that the same wrongfully denied him a promotion to de- colleague lunged at him during a 1982 meet- partment head in favor of a “white male who ing, calling him names and referring to him as “dead meat.”

2 (...continued) Further, Hayatavoudi contends that to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “toward the middle of the [spring] semester of 1995,” Reike sang a “Jewish song” in his 3 We assumeSSwithout decidingSSthat Rieke’s presence. Hayatavoudi also alleges that, position as department head places him in a su- sometime “during the fall or spring of 1996,” pervisory position over Hayatavoudi for purposes Reike told him that, while Reike had been in of title VII analysis. Saudi Arabia, he had seen Saudis “getting rid 4 of their amadies.”5 Because this appeal arises from a summary judgment, we recount the facts in the light most The primary basis for Hayatavoudi’s com- favorable to the non-movant, Hayatavoudi. See plaint, however, appears to be a March 5, Duffy v. Leading Edge Prods., Inc., 44 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1995). This does not mean, however, 1996, altercation between him and Reike stem- that we must give credence to unsupported ming from a departmental meeting in which allegations: “[C]onclusory allegations unsupported Reike notified the faculty that it would not be by concrete and particular facts will not prevent an award of summary judgment.” Id. (citing 5 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, An “amady” appears to be a piece of religious 247 (1986). clothing in the Shiite religion.

allowed to utilize the services of the II. depart ment secretary as much as in the past. In October 1996, Hayatavoudi filed a Upset, the faculty members walked out of the “charge questionnaire” with the Equal Em- meeting. ployment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) complaining of discrimination on the basis of Apparently feeling that Hayatavoudi had led race, religion, nationality, age, and disability. the uprising, Reike co nfronted him in the That charge questionnaire led to an EEOC hallway after the meeting. Reike, who is complaint in May 1997. The EEOC dismissed white, told Hayatavoudi that he was like “the the complaint in a right-to-sue letter a month dogs in the desert, howling as the caravan goes later. by,” which, according to Reike, is a reference to an Arabic proverb. Reike also proclaimed Shortly thereafter, Hayatavoudi filed the that Hayatavoudi had wasted departmental instant complaint alleging title VII claims on assets and equated the waste with thievery. theories of adverse employment action and The altercation escalated and ended with a hostile work environment. After discovery, physical confrontation during which, according the University moved for summary judgment, to Hayatavoudi, Reike bumped him and called which the district court granted after a hearing, him an idiot. Hayatavoudi then touched ruling that Hayatavoudi had produced no Reike, at which point Reike told Hayatavoudi evidence indicating that Reike’s evaluations that he had made a “fatal mistake.”6 were mo t ivated by impermissible discrimination, that Hayatavoudi had not 6 produced sufficient evidence that the The evidence conflicts regarding the substance admittedly hostile environment was the result of the physical confrontation. Hayatavoudi of discriminatory animus, and that all the other testified in his deposition that Reike “started com- complained-of events occurred more than 300 ing at [Hayatavoudi] with his stomach in front and started to touch [him],” at which point Hayatavou- days before the filing of the EEOC charges and di merely asked Reike to calm down. Then, ac- thus were prescribed under title VII. cording to Hayatavoudi, Reike proclaimed, “You touched me, you made your fatal mistake.” Hay- Hayatavoudi appeals the portion of the atavoudi maintained a calm demeanor throughout summary judgment rationale that concludes the altercation. that he had produced insufficient evidence of a hostile work environment. He concedes, In contrast, Reike contends that he and Hay- however, that his “individual claims of adverse atavoudi began screaming at one another, with Reike pointing his finger at Hayatavoudi's face. In response, Hayatavoudi shoved Reike, at which 6 point Reike said, “You assaulted me” and told (...continued) Hayatavoudi he had made a fatal mistake, implying Viewing the facts most favorably to Hayatavou- that Hayatavoudi would be punished by the di, Reike bumped into Hayatavoudi, causing the University for the assault. Reike also contends that physical confrontation. We find it troubling that, he did not bump Hayatavoudi, but instead that while both parties agree that several observers Hayatavoudi bumped into him. Reike merely witnessed the confrontation, neither has produced placed his own hands behind his back and “was supporting testimony from any of these witnesses, going to take the hit.” who could presumably confirm either (continued...) Hayatavoudi’s or Reike’s version of the facts.

employment actions are barred by prescription severity; whether it is physically threatening or or are independently insufficient to constitute humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and a claim for discrimination. . . . [He] does, whether it unreasonably interferes with an however, reference [those] claims . . . as employee’s work performance.” Faragher v. supporting evidence that he was subjected to City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 a hostile environment.” (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).7

III. To violate title VII, discriminatory conduct We review a summary judgment de novo, must be “so severe or pervasive as to alter the applying the same standard as did that court. conditions of [the victim’s] employment.” Id. See Waymire v. Harris County, 86 F.3d 424, at 786 (internal quotation marks omitted, mod- 427 (5th Cir. 1996). To survive a motion for ification in original). Moreover, “an em- summary judgment, the non-moving party ployee’s subjective belief of discrimination, must present sufficient evidence to support the however genuine, cannot be the basis of elements of its prima facie case. See Celotex judicial relief.” Vance v. Union Planters Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321-23 Corp., 209 F.3d 438, 444 (5th Cir. 2000) (1986). “Conclusory allegations unsupported (internal quotation marks omitted). by specific facts, however, will not prevent an award of summary judgment; ‘the plaintiff A. [can]not rest on his allegations . . . to get to a Hayatavoudi acknowledges the infirmity of jury without any significant probative evidence any claims related to employment actions tending to support the complaint.’” National taken more than 300 days before the filing of Ass’n of Gov. Employees v. City Pub. Serv. his EEOC questionnaire.8 Nor does he Bd., 40 F.3d 698, 713 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)) (modifications in original). 7 Although Faragher dealt specifically with sexual harassment, the Court drew heavily from IV. precedent involving racial harassment, noting that, To survive summary judgment on a hostile “[a]lthough racial and sexual harassment will often work environment claim, a plaintiff must es- take different forms, and standards my [sic] not be tablish an issue of fact with respect to each of entirely interchangeable, we think there is good the elements: “(1) racially discriminatory intim- sense in seeking generally to harmonize the idation, ridicule and insults that are; (2) suf- standards of what amounts to actionable ficiently severe or pervasive that they; (3) alter harassment.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 786-87 & the conditions of employment; and (4) create n.1. an abusive working environment.” Walker v. 8 Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 625 (5th Cir. 2000) Title VII imposes time limits on plaintiffs seeking to recover for discriminatory actions. See (citing DeAngelis v. El Paso Mun. Police 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). When a state or local- Officers Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591, 594 (5th Cir. ity provides for an administrative mechanism to 1995)). To determine whether a work en- address complaints, as is the case here, a title VII vironment is impermissibly abusive, a court plaintiff may not recover for discrimination or must consider all aspects of the discriminatory harassment occurring more than 300 days before conduct, including “[its] frequency . . .; its the filing of an EEOC complaint. See id.; Hucka- (continued...)

contend that the “continuing violation” theory decide whether they might properly be used as serves to insulate those claims from the statute evidence supporting a claim of current hostile of limitations.9 Instead, he argues that his em- environment. ployment history with the University serves as evidence of the hostile nature of his In analyzing each of the alleged adverse relationship with that employer. actions, we apply the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. Although he cites no authority for his posi- 792 (1973),10 under which a plaintiff seeking tion, Hayatavoudi argues that, despite the ab- to survive summary judgment must establish a sence of any allegation of a continuing prima facie case of discrimination. See Reeves violation, he may use past events as evidence v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 120 S. of a hostile work environment when actual Ct. 2097, 2106 (2000). The defendant may recovery for those events would be barred by rebut the prima facie case by producing a limitations. Because we conclude that legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for Hayatavoudi has produced no evidence that the employment action; upon such a showing, the past employment actions were motivated the McDonnell Douglas framework by discriminatory animus and, thus, that they disappears, and the remaining issue is are of no probative value in evaluating his “discrimination vel non.” Id. (internal hostile work environment claim, we need not quotation marks omitted).

To survive summary judgment, however, 8 (...continued) the plaintiff may still show that the defendant’s bay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir. 1998). proffered justification is mere pretext. See id. A showing of pretext may, on its own, allow a Because neither party addresses the issue of trier of fact to infer discriminatory motive. See whether the filing of a “charge questionnaire” with the EEOC tolls the statute of limitations under title id. at 2108. VII, we assume, arguendo, that it does. Title VII’s time limits are not jurisdictional and therefore may The first employment action Hayatavoudi be waived by a party for whom they would describes is Ponter’s failure to consider him for otherwise serve as a defense. See Zipes v. Trans appointment to department head. Hayatavoudi World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982). cites Ponter’s deposition testimony that in Thus, to the extent that the University may have choosing a department head, Ponter preferred been able to assert a defense based on the fact that Hayatavoudi’s EEOC complaint was not filed until 10 June 1997, it has waived that defense by failing to Normally, the McDonnell Douglas assert it on appeal. framework is used in analyzing claims of discrimination based on adverse employment 9 See, e.g., Webb v. Cardiothoracic Surgery action. As discussed supra, Hayatavoudi admits Assocs., P.A., 139 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 1998) that he has no viable claims for discriminatory (“Application of [the continuing violation” theory employment actions. Because, however, he relieves a Title VII plaintiff from the burdens of contends that past employment actions are evidence proving that the entire violation occurred within the of a hostile work environment, we must evaluate actionable period provided the plaintiff can show a those actions for discriminatory animus. The series of related acts, one or more of which falls McDonnell Douglas framework is an appropriate within the limitations period.”). device by which to do so.

“American born” citizens to those of foreign contends that the unfavorable scores and nationality. Standing alone, such a statement comments included in his evaluations are the might be indicative of discriminatory animus; result of discriminatory animus and are not in the deposition, however, Ponter also indicative of his actual performance. The indicated his basis for the statement, that under record reflects that, while Hayatavoudi’s his view of United States immigration law, “if overall scores are generally unfavorableSShe you have a U.S. citizen and a foreigner with has received a rating of four every year since exactly the same qualification, you take the Reike began the evaluation process, except for U.S. citizen.” Viewed in context, Ponter’s 1997, when he received a “three-star”12SSthey assertion represents merely an imprecise are not substantially worse than those of any formulation of his (accurate) view of the other member of the department, with the University’s rights under federal immigration exception of Ali Ghalambour, an Iranian law.11 professor who consistently receives ratings of one and two. Notably, Hayatavoudi has failed More importantly, the University has ar- to show that he was treated differently, with ticulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory justi- respect to his overall scores, from any non- fication for its failure to consider Hayatavoudi minority member of the department.13 for the position. Gary Marota, the University’s vice president for academic More than the overall scores, Hayatavoudi affairs, indicated that he had instructed Ponter complains about his ratings in the area of re- to look for a department head from outside the search, where he has received consistently low department, given the fact that every member scores.14 The record reflects, however, that of the department, including Hayatavoudi, had the unfavorable evaluations were always ac- in the past served as department head, each companied by detailed explanations, providing “with great disaster.” Given this legitimate legitimate justification for the ratings. justification for hiring Reike, an outsider, Hayatavoudi often failed to sign the instead of Hayatavoudi, and the inability of evaluations, because he felt they were unfair, Hayatavoudi to show that the justification is pretext, we cannot conclude that the University's choice of department head results 12 The faculty rating system allows an from any racial, ethnic, or religious animus. evaluatorSSin this case, ReikeSSto assign ratings from one to four. One is the highest rating a Hayatavoudi complains about his professor can attain under the system, while four unfavorable performance evaluations. He indicates unsatisfactory performance. Three indicates satisfactory performance, while “three- star” indicates performance at a level slightly high- er than three. 11 Ponter’s exposition of the law on this point is correct: “[I]t is not an unfair immigration-related 13 Although the petroleum engineering employment practice for a person or other entity to department had only one non-minority member, prefer to hire, recruit or refer an individual who is that professor consistently received ratings of four. a citizen or national of the United States over 14 another individual who is an alien if the two It is undisputed that Hayatavoudi received individuals are equally qualified.” 8 U.S.C. § consistently high ratings from Reike in his teaching 1324b(a)(4). evaluations.

and he made numerous complaints to pretext. University administrat ion about the evaluations; there is, however, no evidence in Hayatavoudi next takes issue with what he the record that those complaints alleged any terms the “revocation” of his endowed racial, ethnic, or religious motivation for the professorship. Hayatavoudi contends that the evaluations. Moreover, the record reflects that revocation is the result of discrimination. The Hayatavoudi failed to take advantage of University admits that Hayatavoudi lost the invitations to discuss his evaluations with the professorship but contends that the University administration. professorship is awarded on renewable three- year terms. Because Hayatavoudi failed to re- Regarding the substance of the apply for the professorship, it expired. evaluationsSSthat he failed to meet standards for scholarly productionSSHayatavoudi argues Hayatavoudi does not dispute that he failed that he has produced fifteen publications, one to reapply for the professorship but seems to patent, and four pending patents. In his contend that he did not need to reapply. Not- deposition, however, he could point to only ably, he has not produced any evidence that one publication, four abstracts, and no the expiration of his professorship was related proposals during the first eight months of 1998 to racial, ethnic, or religious animus or that his and two or three abstracts, resulting in two failure to reapply is merely pretext for publications, during 1997. One of the 1997 discrimination. publications discussed his sole patent, which appears to cover an invention made during the Hayatavoudi also complains about a course of an independent contract with an research stipend that was revoked when his outside company, not within the scope of his research was not approved. Although he employment at the University. alleges that the research was pre-approved and that the disapproval was therefore improper, Although Hayatavoudi remembers he provides no evidence supporting the publishing something in 1996, he cannot allegation. Such a bare allegation is not remember the substance of that article. Reike probative with respect to the issue of whether stated, in his deposition, that he instructed the stipend revocation was motivated by Hayatavoudi to produce at least one research discrimination. Neither the expiration of proposal per semester and that Hayatavoudi Hayatavoudi’s professorship nor the had failed to comply with that instruction; revocation of his research stipend evidences Hayatavoudi does not dispute this contention. any racial, ethnic, or religious animus. To summarize, other than a vague statement regarding the number of publications he has Hayatavoudi alleges that in an attempt to produced throughout his career, Hayatavoudi force him to resign, the University subjected can point to no evidence showing that his him to “harsher working conditions” than production deserves a rating higher than four. those faced by other faculty members. The On this record, there is nothing to show that only support we can find in the record for this the University’s justification for Hayatavoudi's allegation is the assertion in his affidavit that low evaluationsSSthat he failed to produce “[h]e was never provided a safe environment enough publications or proposalsSSis mere to teach [sic] after his injury and did have to

teach in his dormitory for a period of time.”15 “supporting” allegations, we now turn to the allegations that directly undergird his hostile work environment claim. The first of those al- The record reflects that Hayatavoudi was legations is the “Jewish song.” We need not told repeatedly that he was not allowed to decide the perverse issue of whether the mere teach from his dormitory room because it was singing of a Jewish song around a Moslem against University policy, yet he continued the constitutes religious harassment, because Hay- practice. Other than his testimony that his atavoudi’s unsupported allegation cannot form back injury and urinary tract surgery rendered the basis for relief. him unable to teach in a classroom, Haya- tavoudi fails to support, with facts in the rec- Nowhere in the record do we find support ord, his allegation of unsafe environment. for the allegation; in fact, during his More importantly, he fails to establish any con- deposition, Hayatavoudi could not even state nection between his allegations and any racial, with any degree of specificity when the event ethnic, or religious animus. As we have said, occurred or who may have witnessed it. unsupported allegations are not probative Likewise, accepting as true Hayatavoudi’s evidence of hostile work environment. allegation that Reike told him that the Saudis were “getting rid of their amadies,” we fail to Finally, Hayatavoudi complains that he was see how the recounting of an observed “subjected to continuous defamatory remarks phenomenon, without more, can possibly be to his peers and students by Dean Ponter and considered harassing conduct. We therefore Dr. Herman Reike, such as stating ‘you are no cannot conclude that either of these events is research professor’ and ‘your work is no probative of the ultimate fact of racial, ethnic, good.’” Hayatavoudi has failed, however, to or religious harassment. produce the testimony of any peers or students supporting these allegations. The events that occurred on and after March 5, 1996, form the primary basis for Once again, unsupported allegations Hayatavoudi’s hostile work environment provide no evidence of any racial, ethnic, or claim.16 In evaluating whether these events religious animus on the part of Reike or Pon- constitute “discriminatory conduct [that] was ter. Viewing the evidence in the light most severe or pervasive enough to create an favorable to Hayatavoudi, we cannot conclude that any of the actions of which Hayatavoudi 16 complains provide evidence that he was Hayatavoudi also asks us to consider, in subjected to discrimination or a hostile work evaluating his hostile work environment claim, the environment. “Ayatollah Assodollah” comment and the con- frontation between himself and Farshad. Those events occurred in 1982, and Hayatavoudi cannot B. show that any discriminatory conduct has occurred Having disposed of all of Hayatavoudi’s in the intervening period. Moreover, Farshad, the antagonist in each of those events, no longer works in the petroleum engineering department. On these 15 Because neither the pleadings nor Hayatavou- facts, we cannot conclude that either event is di’s brief describes the harsh conditions, we are left probative of pervasive racial, ethnic, or religious to speculate as to what he may have been referring. hostility within title VII’s limitation period.

objectively hostile or abusive work basis for a Title VII claim. environment,” Walker, 214 F.3d at 625 (citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, Assuming, arguendo, that Reike’s “dog in 22 (1993)), we must be mindful that “Title the desert” comment was motivated by racial VII is not a general civility code for the animus,17 that comment alone does not rise to American workplace . . . .” Indest v. Freeman a level sufficiently severe to support a title VII Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258, 263 (5th Cir. claim. We have stated that “mere utterance of 1999) (single-judge opinion) (citing Oncale v. an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, offensive feelings in an employee” does not 81 (1998)). Indeed, “conduct must be extreme constitute actionable harassment under title to amount to a change in the terms and VII. Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. conditions of employment . . . .” Faragher, 1971), quoted in Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787. 524 U.S. at 788. The proper title VII analysis “will filter out complaints attacking the Coupled with the physical “bump,” ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as however, Reike’s comment becomes a closer the sporadic use of abusive language, gender- call.18 Nonetheless, in looking at “all the related jokes, and occasional teasing.” Id. (in- circumstances,” as required by Faragher, id., ternal quotation marks omitted) (discussing, in the altercation did not constitute harassment the context of a sexual harassment suit, the severe enough to alter the conditions of em- “demanding” standard a court must use to ployment. There appear to have been no neg- properly judge hostility). ative ramifications resulting from the incident; indeed, Hayatavoudi concedes that the Having decided that neither the University’s atmosphere in the department has been employment decisions nor the two prior relatively placid since then.19 In summary, a interactions between Reike and Hayatavoudi provide probative evidence with respect to the ultimate issue in this caseSSwhether racial, 17 This is not to say that such an assumption is ethnic, or religious animus contributed to the dictated by the facts of this case. Indeed, it seems admittedly hostile atmosphere in the petroleum far more plausible to conclude that Reike, upset engineering departmentSSwe now evaluate the over the faculty’s interruption of the department March 1996 altercation. Viewed most meeting, simply confronted Hayatavoudi, whom favorably to Hayatavoudi, that incident Reike (correctly or incorrectly) assumed to be the consists of the following: (1) Reike’s “dog in leader of the mutiny, with an allegory he had the desert” comment to Hayatavoudi; (2) the learned during his extensive travels to Moslem chest “butting” between Reike and Hayatavou- countries. di; (3) Reike’s “idiot” insult; and (4) Reike’s 18 allegation that Hayatavoudi’s wastefulness As we note supra, one of the factors to amounts to thievery. Because all the events consider in evaluating discriminatory conduct is “whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, occurred during one altercation, the allegedly or a mere offensive utterance . . . .” Faragher, 524 discriminatory conduct plainly was not U.S. at 787-88. pervasive. The sole remaining issue, therefore, is whether any of the eventsSSor their 19 In fact, Marota and Ponter testified that Reike confluenceSSwas severe enough to form a was informally reprimanded after the incident, and (continued...)

primarily verbal altercation, during which With respect to the strained relationship nothing more physically threatening than chest between Reike and Hayatavoudi, the only al- “butting” occurred, is not sufficiently severe to legation even remotely indicative of racial justify relief under title VII. animus is the altercation in March 1996. That event cannot be described as severe enough to The fact that Reike called Hayatavoudi an alter Hayatavoudi’s conditions of employment, idiot during the altercation does nothing to however, and therefore cannot on its own alter our analysis. During a heated exchange, support a title VII claim. it is not unusual for combatants to exchange such unpleasantries; that comment utterly fails The district court aptly summed up this to provide any probative evidence of racial case when, in its oral ruling granting summary animus. Likewise, Reike’s assertion that Hay- judgment, it stated that “[t]hese two guys just atavoudi’s wastefulness is tantamount to thiev- didn’t get along” but that “I don’t think . . . a ery is nothing more than an angry statement jury could find that it had anything to do with made during an altercation; it displays no racial race, religion, or national origin.” Hayatavou- animus.20 di has failed to establish a material issue of fact with respect to each of the elements of his V. prima facie claim. In particular, he cannot es- Without a doubt, the environment in the tablish a fact issue with respect to whether the petroleum engineering department was far University’s conduct was severe or pervasive from harmonious. To the extent that the strife enough to alter the conditions of his in that department exceeded the infighting typ- employment. Viewing all the supportable ical of academic settings, however, we cannot allegations in the light most favorable to conclude that racial animus caused the Hayatavoudi, we conclude that the district aberration. With respect to each of the court properly granted summary judgment. employment actions Hayatavoudi mentions, the University has produced legitimate, non- AFFIRMED. discriminatory justifications to counter every colorable allegation. Even after extensive discovery, Hayatavoudi cannot show that any of the asserted justifications is pretext.

19 (...continued) Hayatavoudi concedes that there have been no other incidents since the March 1996 incident and speculates that “somebody may have talked to [Reike].” 20 Moreover, Reike contendsSSand Hayatavoudi does not disputeSSthat Reike’s statement resulted from a conversation with other faculty members in which they described Hayatavoudi's purported wastefulness.