## Facts

- William B. Boise, a 76-year-old tenured professor at NYU’s Wagner School, brought suit pro se alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA.
- Boise previously filed an earlier age-discrimination case against NYU involving a different time period; it was dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
- Before this action, Boise filed an EEOC charge alleging age discrimination and retaliation; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice.
- Boise challenged three actions: (1) NYU’s failure to assign him courses in 2003 and 2004, (2) revocation of his tenure after internal proceedings, and (3) refusal to renew his university apartment lease for a three-year term.
- NYU initiated termination proceedings based on alleged misconduct and policy violations, including grading practices allegedly contrary to policy, harassment of faculty and staff, tampering with faculty mailboxes, and other disruptive behavior.
- After a hearing under NYU’s tenure-termination procedures, a faculty committee recommended termination, finding Boise engaged in conduct seriously prejudicial to the welfare of the university; an internal appeal committee affirmed.
- The record reflected that other Wagner School faculty over age 70 continued to teach, and there was no evidence of age-related comments directed at Boise or other older faculty.

## Issues

1. Whether Boise produced evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that NYU’s course nonassignment, tenure revocation, or lease decision occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination under the ADEA.
2. Whether Boise produced evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that those actions were taken in retaliation for protected activity (prior ADEA litigation and EEOC charge).

## Decision

- The court granted NYU’s Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- On discrimination, the court held Boise failed to raise a triable issue that age motivated any challenged decision.
- NYU articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons grounded in Boise’s conduct and the results of the internal tenure-termination process.
- Boise failed to produce evidence showing NYU’s stated reasons were pretext for age discrimination, relying largely on subjective beliefs rather than admissible proof.
- On retaliation, the court held Boise failed to show a causal connection between protected activity and the adverse actions, particularly in light of independent, documented reasons for NYU’s decisions.

## Legal Principles

- ADEA disparate-treatment claims at summary judgment are commonly analyzed under the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting framework: prima facie case, employer’s legitimate reason, then plaintiff’s showing of pretext and discriminatory motive.
- To establish ADEA retaliation, a plaintiff must show protected activity, employer knowledge, an adverse action, and a causal connection; once a non-retaliatory justification is offered, the plaintiff must produce evidence from which retaliation could be found to be the cause of the action.
- Conclusory allegations and subjective beliefs do not create a genuine dispute of material fact under Rule 56; the nonmovant must present evidence permitting a reasonable jury to find in the nonmovant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for NYU because Boise did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that NYU’s course decisions, tenure termination, or lease determination were driven by age bias or retaliation, given NYU’s documented, non-age-related misconduct rationale and the absence of proof of pretext or causation.


Boise v. N.Y. Univ., No. 03 Civ. 5862 (RWS), 2005 WL 2899853 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2005)