Title IX retaliation claim; Whether defendant-university presented legitimate reasons for seeking plaintiff’s resignation; “Pretext”; Insubordination; “Protected activity”; Application of a progressive discipline policy; Denial of motions for further discovery

Holding that plaintiff-Goldblum failed to show defendant-University of Cincinnati’s (UC) reasons for asking her to resign from her position as its Title IX Coordinator were a pretext for discrimination, the court affirmed summary judgment for UC on her Title IX retaliation claim. She wrote a letter to the student newspaper about an incident where a sex offender was mistakenly honored at graduation. Despite the fact her supervisor informed her that a process to address the incident was already in place, Goldblum sent the letter and also an updated draft. Her supervisor reported her insubordination, and an internal investigation “discovered additional infractions, namely that Goldblum repeatedly ignored Title IX complaints, justified her insubordination to her staff, repeatedly criticized her colleagues in front of her staff, routinely interrupted her staff’s work, and missed many of her own reporting deadlines.” She was then asked to resign in lieu of termination for “insubordination and unacceptable work behavior in violation of UC’s Conduct Policy.” On appeal, the court first held that UC offered two legitimate reasons for asking for her resignation. It then considered whether Goldblum established that these reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination. The court rejected her claim her actions did not constitute insubordination, holding that her letter was not protected activity where it “didn’t complain of sex discrimination” and it did not provide notice to an authorized official to institute corrective measures. The court further held that the fact some evidence of her “unprofessional conduct” was not discovered until after she resigned was inconsequential. The court would not “infer pretext merely because UC elaborated on its justifications for terminating Goldblum after she resigned.” In addition, it found that because her “own files and correspondence confirmed that she failed to meet many of her reporting deadlines, UC had a factual basis to terminate her for poor work performance.” Any argument that UC failed to “uniformly apply a progressive discipline policy” failed given that she “identified no similarly situated employee who received a more lenient reprimand despite engaging in ‘substantially identical conduct.’” As to the district court’s orders denying additional discovery, the court held she had “ample opportunity” to take discovery before summary judgment, and that “her further discovery requests would likely have been futile.”