SONG v. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
XIAO SONG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA,
et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-56 (CDL)
O R D E R
Xiao 	Song 	is 	a 	professor 	at 	the 	University 	of 	Georgia’s
College of Public Health. 	She is an Asian woman of Chinese origin.
Song claims that after she complained about perceived preferential
treatment 	of 	a 	white 	tenure 	candidate’s 	dossier, 	her 	supervisors
retaliated against her by giving her poor performance reviews and
issuing 	her 	a 	letter 	of 	counseling. 	Song 	also 	contends 	that 	she
was 	discriminated 	against 	based 	on 	her 	race 	and 	national 	origin
because 	she 	was 	paid 	less 	than 	and 	received 	less 	favorable
performance 	reviews 	than 	white 	employees. 	Song 	asserts
retaliation 	claims 	and 	race 	and 	national 	origin 	discrimination
claims 	against 	the 	Board 	of 	Regents 	of 	the 	University 	System 	of
Georgia under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 	2000e, 	et 	seq. 	She 	also 	asserts 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 1981 	race
discrimination 	and 	retaliation 	claims 	against 	two 	of 	her
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 22

2
supervisors, 	Jose 	Cordero 	and 	Marsha 	Davis. 	Presently 	pending
before the Court is Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 	For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion (ECF No. 14).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary 	judgment 	may 	be 	granted 	only 	“if 	the 	movant 	shows
that 	there 	is 	no 	genuine 	dispute 	as 	to 	any 	material 	fact 	and 	the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). 	In 	determining 	whether 	a 	genuine 	dispute 	of 	material
fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the evidence
is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment, 	drawing 	all 	justifiable 	inferences 	in 	the 	opposing
party’s favor. 	Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). 	A fact is material if it is relevant or necessary to the
outcome of the suit. 	Id. at 248. 	A factual dispute is genuine if
the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for
the nonmoving party. 	Id.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Xiao 	Song 	is 	a 	tenured 	full 	professor 	at 	the 	University 	of
Georgia, 	where 	she 	works 	in 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health’s
Department 	of 	Epidemiology 	and 	Biostatistics. 	She 	is 	a 	Chinese
citizen of Chinese origin, and she is a permanent resident of the
United States. 	Song began working at UGA in 2006 as an assistant
professor 	in 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health. 	She 	was 	promoted 	to
associate 	professor 	with 	tenure 	in 	2011, 	and 	she 	was 	promoted 	to
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 22

3
the 	highest 	rank 	of 	full 	professor 	in 	2019. 	From 	2015 	to 	2024,
Song’s 	direct 	supervisor 	was 	Jose 	Cordero. 	During 	that 	time,
Cordero 	was 	head 	of 	the 	Department 	of 	Epidemiology 	and
Biostatistics. 	Marsha Davis is the dean of the College of Public
Health and was Cordero’s supervisor during the relevant timeframe.
In 	2020, 	Song 	served 	on 	the 	promotion 	and 	tenure 	committee
for Andrea Swartzendruber, an assistant professor of epidemiology.
Song 	did 	not 	receive 	an 	electronic 	calendar 	invitation 	to 	a 	July
2020 	committee 	meeting 	regarding 	a 	pre-evaluation 	of
Swartzendruber’s 	tenure 	application. 	Song 	did 	receive
notification 	of 	an 	August 	2020 	committee 	meeting, 	which 	she
attended. 	During 	that 	meeting, 	Song 	and 	another 	professor, 	Ming
Zhang, 	raised 	issues 	with 	Swartzendruber’s 	tenure 	application,
including 	their 	contention 	that 	the 	application 	contained 	false
information 	about 	Swartzendruber’s 	external 	funding. 	But 	the
committee, 	led 	by 	Cordero, 	voted 	on 	Swartzendruber’s 	application
“without the benefit of having confirmatory data about each of the
issues.” 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	E, 	Letter 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to
Committee 	1 	(Sep. 	15, 	2020), 	ECF 	No. 	16-3. 	Cordero 	asserts 	that
after 	the 	vote, 	he 	investigated 	the 	concerns 	raised 	by 	Song 	and
Zhang, 	concluded 	that 	Swartzendruber 	had 	not 	made 	any 	material
misrepresentations 	in 	her 	dossier, 	and 	issued 	a 	letter 	regarding
his 	findings 	to 	the 	Swartzendruber 	tenure 	committee 	on 	September
15, 2020. 	Id.
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 22

4
Dissatisfied 	with 	Cordero’s 	response, 	Song 	and 	Zhang, 	along
with 	another 	colleague 	named 	Hanwen 	Huang, 	submitted 	a 	written
complaint to Elizabeth Weeks, UGA’s Associate Provost for Academic
Affairs. 	The 	authors 	did 	not 	identify 	themselves 	in 	the 	letter
but 	signed 	it 	“A 	Group 	of 	Faculty 	in 	Department 	of 	Epidemiology
and Biostatistics.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F, Letter from Group
of Faculty to E. Weeks (Sep. 24, 2020), ECF No. 16-4. 	The letter
stated 	that 	“faculty 	A” 	and 	“faculty 	B” 	were 	excluded 	from 	the
preliminary meeting about Swartzendruber, it raised concerns about
Swartzendruber’s 	representations 	regarding 	her 	external 	funding
and 	teaching 	load, 	it 	accused 	Cordero 	of 	placing 	a 	retaliatory
letter 	in 	Zhang’s 	personnel 	record, 	and 	it 	raised 	concerns 	about
Cordero’s leadership style and lack of professionalism. 	Id. at 1-
5. 	The letter did not expressly mention race, national origin, or
discrimination. 	It 	did 	accuse 	Cordero 	of 	retaliating 	“against
faculty 	who 	raised 	different 	opinions” 	during 	the 	August 	27
meeting. 	Id. at 3.
On October 4, 2020, Song, Zhang, and Huang submitted another
letter 	from 	the 	“Group 	of 	Faculty 	Members 	at 	the 	Department 	of
Epidemiology 	and 	Biostatistics,” 	this 	time 	to 	Senior 	Vice
President 	for 	Academic 	Affairs 	and 	Provost 	Jack 	Hu. 	Defs.’ 	Mot.
Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	G, 	Letter 	from 	Group 	of 	Faculty 	to 	J. 	Hu 	(Oct. 	4,
2020), 	ECF 	No. 	16-5. 	The 	authors 	did 	not 	identify 	themselves 	in
the 	letter. 	The 	letter 	accused 	Cordero 	of 	manipulating 	the
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 22

5
promotion and tenure process for Swartzendruber, and it expressed
concerns 	about 	perceived 	unfairness 	in 	teaching 	load, 	annual
review criteria, and allocation of departmental funds. 	Id. at 2-
3. 	Specifically, the authors accused Cordero of treating Ye Shen,
a biostatistics faculty member, more favorably than other faculty
members. 	Id. 	The letter did not expressly mention race, national
origin, 	or 	discrimination. 	It 	did 	accuse 	Cordero 	of 	retaliating
“against 	faculty 	members 	who 	raised 	questions” 	during 	the 	August
27 	meeting, 	of 	placing 	a 	retaliatory 	letter 	in 	Zhang’s 	personnel
record, and of retaliating against unspecified faculty members for
questioning his methods. 	Id. at 4-5.
Nearly a year later, in September 2021, Song, Zhang, and Huang
wrote another letter to Hu, this time signing their names. 	Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. H, Letter from X. Song et al. to J. Hu (Sep. 9,
2021), ECF No. 16-6. 	The letter complained that Associate Provost
Weeks never produced an investigation report regarding their prior
letter to her and opined that Weeks’s failure to produce a report
was 	“a 	dangerous 	signal 	sent 	from 	Provost’s 	office 	showing 	its
stance 	and 	permissiveness 	over 	wrongdoings 	in 	academic 	integrity
and 	fairness, 	and 	importantly, 	in 	the 	wake 	of 	correcting 	anti-
Asian bias nationwide.” 	Id. at 1. 	The letter noted that Song and
Zhang 	“are 	Asian 	females” 	and 	accused 	Cordero 	of 	excluding 	them
from the preliminary meeting about Swartzendruber. 	Id. 	The letter
also 	complained 	Cordero 	“retaliated 	fiercely 	against 	Drs. 	Zhang
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 22

6
and 	Song, 	who 	raised 	legitimate 	questions 	about” 	Swartzendruber
during 	the 	August 	2020 	tenure 	committee 	meeting. 	Id. 	As 	an
example 	of 	Cordero’s 	retaliation, 	the 	letter 	stated 	that 	Cordero
did not reply to Song’s questions about her March 2021 evaluation
letter. 	Id. at 2. 	The letter also stated that Cordero was biased
toward 	Swartzendruber 	and 	Shen, 	“two 	faculty 	members 	. . . 	that
are close to him.” 	Id. at 3.
The next month, in October 2021, Song, Zhang, and Huang sent
another letter to Hu. 	The October 2021 letter purports to respond
to 	an 	email 	Hu 	sent 	to 	Zhang 	on 	September 	10, 	2021. 	The 	letter
accused 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health—specifically 	Davis 	and
Cordero—of 	providing 	false 	information 	to 	the 	provost 	following
the September 2020 letter. 	The letter included a timeline of the
reports 	that 	Song, 	Zhang, 	and 	Huang 	made 	to 	the 	provost’s 	office
and 	the 	UGA 	Ombudsperson, 	and 	it 	complained 	that 	the 	provost 	did
not 	take 	their 	reports 	seriously. 	The 	letter 	did 	not 	explicitly
mention 	race 	or 	national 	origin 	discrimination, 	but 	it 	did
reiterate 	the 	accusation 	that 	Cordero 	retaliated 	against
“colleagues 	with 	different 	opinions” 	and 	“faculty 	members 	who
raised legitimate questions.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. I, Letter
from X. Song et al. to J. Hu 1-2 (Oct. 11, 2021), ECF No. 16-7.
In 	December 	2021, 	UGA’s 	vice 	provost 	for 	academic 	affairs
appointed 	an 	independent 	committee 	composed 	of 	faculty 	members
from outside the College of Public Health to review the allegations
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 22

7
made by Song, Zhang, and Huang. 	The three-person review committee
was 	provided 	with 	the 	communications 	Song, 	Zhang, 	and 	Huang 	had
sent 	regarding 	their 	concerns, 	as 	well 	as 	responses 	from 	the
provost’s 	office. 	The 	review 	committee 	interviewed 	Cordero,
Davis, 	Song, 	Zhang, 	and 	Huang, 	as 	well 	as 	several 	other 	faculty
members, 	and 	they 	“explored 	the 	promotion 	and 	tenure 	process 	as
well as the culture in the department.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex.
B-10, Epidemiology & Biostatistics Review 1, ECF No. 15-2.
In 	an 	undated 	report 	that 	was 	forwarded 	to 	Song, 	Zhang 	and
Huang on February 18, 2022, the review committee reported that it
had investigated the complainants’ concerns about the Epidemiology
and 	Biostatistics 	Department’s 	promotion 	and 	tenure 	process,
leadership, and culture. 	The review committee concluded that the
“views and concerns” of the complainants (Song, Zhang, and Huang)
were 	“not 	representative 	of 	the 	[Department 	of 	Epidemiology 	and
Biostatistics’s] 	perspective.” 	Id. 	The 	review 	committee 	noted
that 	the 	Department’s 	tone 	was 	“tense,” 	with 	individuals 	who
interacted 	with 	the 	complainants 	“feel[ing] 	they 	have 	been
bullied.” 	Id. 	The review committee found no “major issues” with
the 	Swartzendruber 	promotion 	and 	tenure 	process 	and 	no 	“evidence
of 	favoritism 	or 	lack 	of 	fairness.” 	Id. 	at 	1-2. 	Finally, 	the
review committee stated that it “experienced behaviors during the
interviews” that were consistent with descriptions of “disruptive
behavior” they had been told about, including unnamed individuals
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 22

8
“blaming 	others 	for 	problems, 	becoming 	unusually 	upset 	over
everyday 	situations, 	challenging 	and 	resisting 	authority,” 	and
“expressing 	entitlement 	and 	that 	rules 	do 	not 	apply.” 	Id. 	at 	3.
The 	review 	committee’s 	report 	does 	not 	reference 	complaints 	of
race 	or 	national 	origin 	discrimination 	or 	complaints 	of
retaliation.
Song, 	Zhang, 	and 	Huang 	responded 	to 	the 	review 	committee’s
report in a letter to Provost Hu and Vice Provost Rodrigues. 	Pl.’s
Resp. 	to 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	29, 	Response 	Letter 	(Undated),
ECF 	No. 	20-29. 	The 	response 	stated 	that 	the 	review 	committee’s
report was “obviously questionable,” stated that the investigation
process was “significantly influenced by” others in the Department
and in the College of Public Health, challenged one of the review
committee’s factual findings, asked that the investigation be re-
opened, 	and 	requested 	transfers 	to 	other 	departments 	for 	Song,
Zhang, 	and 	Huang. 	Id. 	at 	2-3. 	The 	response 	did 	not 	explicitly
reference 	race 	or 	national 	origin 	discrimination. 	It 	did 	state
that 	as 	a 	consequence 	of 	the 	review 	committee’s 	report, 	Song,
Zhang, 	and 	Huang 	faced 	“even 	severer 	retaliation,” 	including
disciplinary action against Zhang. 	Id. at 3.
On 	March 	24, 	2022, 	Song 	had 	her 	annual 	evaluation 	meeting
with 	Cordero 	regarding 	2021. 	Senior 	Associate 	Dean 	for 	Research
and 	Faculty 	Affairs 	Timothy 	Heckman 	attended 	the 	meeting 	without
explanation. 	Cordero 	rated 	Song 	as 	meeting 	expectations 	for
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 22

9
teaching 	and 	service, 	below 	expectations 	for 	scholarship, 	and
meeting 	expectations 	with 	comments 	for 	improvement 	in 	overall
performance. 	For 2016 to 2020, Cordero had rated Song as meeting
expectations 	for 	scholarship, 	teaching, 	service, 	and 	overall
performance. 	For 	2021, 	though, 	Cordero 	stated 	that 	Song’s
scholarship 	was 	below 	expectations 	because 	although 	her 	level 	of
publications 	met 	expectations, 	she 	did 	not 	have 	sufficient
external funding for research. 	Cordero found that Song’s external
funding 	for 	2021 	totaled 	$45,811.50, 	that 	she 	had 	not 	“obtained
external 	funding 	to 	support 	doctoral 	students 	and 	postdoctoral
research 	fellows,” 	and 	that 	her 	total 	research 	expenditures 	were
“the 	lowest 	amount 	of 	all 	Full 	Professors 	in 	the 	department” 	for
2021, well below the median of $405,963 and the mean of $582,567.
Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B-17, 2021 Evaluation 3, ECF No. 15-3.
Song objected to the findings during the meeting and later in
writing, 	arguing 	that 	Cordero 	had 	understated 	her 	external
research funding by more than $24,000 and that she had contributed
to 	supporting 	students 	in 	the 	department 	through 	“direct 	and
indirect costs.” 	Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 12, 2021
Evaluation 	Resp. 	(Undated), 	ECF 	No. 	20-12. 	Song 	also 	noted 	that
she discovered through “personal conversations” that her “external
fund 	expenditure” 	for 	2021 	was 	“similar 	to 	another 	department
faculty 	member’s 	at 	the 	same 	rank.” 	Id. 	Song 	did 	not 	point 	to
evidence of the actual amount of the colleague’s external funding
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 9 of 22

10
for 2021, and she admits that she did not know the “exact amount”
of 	her 	colleague’s 	external 	funding 	“because 	we 	never 	talk 	about
exact 	amount.” 	Song 	Dep. 	86:22-88:1, 	ECF 	No. 	17. 	Song 	also 	did
not 	point 	to 	evidence 	regarding 	the 	other 	components 	of 	the
colleague’s scholarship rating, such as his publications. 	Cordero
did not respond to Song’s letter.
After the evaluation meeting, Heckman sent Cordero an email,
copying 	Davis, 	stating 	that 	he 	was 	“deeply 	disturbed” 	by 	what 	he
observed 	during 	the 	meeting, 	that 	Cordero 	“administered 	the
evaluation 	in 	a 	very 	professional 	manner,” 	and 	that 	Song 	reacted
to 	the 	below 	expectations 	rating 	by 	yelling 	“belligerently” 	at
Cordero. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	A-2, 	Email 	from 	T. 	Heckman 	to
J. Cordero 2 (Mar. 24, 2022), ECF No. 14-4. 	Heckman reported that
he had “never seen a faculty member engage in such unprofessional
behavior 	during 	an 	annual 	evaluation.” 	Id. 	Shortly 	after
receiving Heckman’s email, Davis issued Song a letter of counseling
which stated that Song’s behavior during the annual review meeting
was “inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful” because she
spoke 	to 	Cordero 	“with 	an 	angry 	tone, 	yelled 	at 	him 	for 	extended
periods of time, and interrupted him multiple times.” 	Defs.’ Mot.
Summ. J. Ex. B-19, Letter from M. Davis to X. Song (Mar. 24, 2022),
ECF No. 15-4.
Nearly 	a 	year 	later, 	in 	February 	2023, 	Cordero 	sent 	Song 	a
written 	annual 	review 	for 	2022. 	He 	again 	rated 	Song 	as 	meeting
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 10 of 22

11
expectations 	for 	teaching 	and 	service, 	below 	expectations 	for
scholarship, 	and 	meeting 	expectations 	with 	comments 	for
improvement 	in 	overall 	performance. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	B-
20, 	Mem. 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	X. 	Song 	(Feb. 	20, 	2023), 	ECF 	No. 	15-
5. 	Cordero 	noted 	that 	Song’s 	primary 	external 	funding 	from
research 	was 	a 	National 	Science 	Foundation 	grant 	that 	she 	shared
with 	Huang, 	that 	she 	had 	two 	“small 	grants,” 	and 	that 	she 	had
submitted “multiple grants . . . that were not funded.” 	Id. at 3.
Cordero 	stated 	that 	this 	level 	of 	grant 	funding 	was 	below
expectations, 	citing 	the 	College 	of 	Health 	Promotion 	and 	Tenure
Guidelines. 	Id. 	He 	encouraged 	Song 	to 	seek 	additional 	external
funding. 	Id. 	at 	5. 	Song 	responded 	to 	the 	review, 	questioning
whether each criterion in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines must
be met each year and noting that although the grants she received
were 	small, 	they 	were 	considered 	prestigious. 	Pl.’s 	Resp. 	to
Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	19, 	Letter 	from 	X. 	Song 	to 	J. 	Cordero
(Feb. 28, 2023), ECF No. 20-19. 	Cordero did not respond to Song’s
letter.
In July 2023, Song filed a charge of discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 	In her EEOC charge, Song
stated 	that 	she 	had 	complained 	about 	racial 	discrimination 	and
retaliation 	in 	2021 	and 	2022 	and 	later 	received 	negative
performance 	reviews 	and 	a 	letter 	of 	counseling. 	She 	later 	filed
this action. 	In August 2024, Cordero left his position as head of
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 11 of 22

12
the 	department, 	and 	Ye 	Shen 	became 	the 	new 	department 	head. 	In
March of 2025, the post-tenure review committee completed the year-
5 	post-tenure 	review 	for 	Song 	and 	concluded 	that 	Song 	met
expectations for a tenured faculty member at UGA.1
DISCUSSION
I. 	Song’s Discrimination Claims
Song 	asserts 	that 	Defendants 	discriminated 	against 	her
because of her race and national origin. 	To establish a Title VII
race or national origin discrimination claim, Song must show that
her employer subjected her to an adverse employment action “because
of” her race or national origin, which she may do by demonstrating
that her race or national origin “was a motivating factor” for the
action. 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 2000e-2(a)(1) 	& 	(m). 	For 	a 	§ 1981 	race
discrimination claim, Song must demonstrate that she was subjected
to 	an 	adverse 	employment 	action 	and 	that 	her 	race 	was 	the 	“but
for” 	cause 	of 	the 	action. 	Comcast 	Corp. 	v. 	Nat’l 	Ass’n 	of 	Afr.
Am.-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 341 (2020).
Song 	argues 	that 	Defendants 	subjected 	her 	to 	the 	following
discriminatory 	adverse 	employment 	actions: 	(1) 	lower 	pay 	than 	a
white 	colleague 	and 	(2) 	lower 	performance 	ratings 	than 	white
colleagues. 	The 	Court 	assumes 	for 	purposes 	of 	this 	order 	that
1 	The 	parties’ 	fact 	statements 	include 	facts 	about 	Song’s 	“meets
expectations” annual review for 2023, but Song does not appear to contend
that the 2023 review was an adverse employment action, so the Court finds
that these facts are immaterial.
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 12 of 22

13
these 	actions 	constitute 	“some 	harm 	respecting 	an 	identifiable
term 	or 	condition 	of 	employment” 	and 	are 	thus 	adverse 	employment
actions. 	Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346, 355 (2024).
To survive summary judgment, Song must present enough evidence to
show 	causation—evidence 	that 	“creates 	a 	triable 	issue 	concerning
the 	employer’s 	discriminatory 	intent.” 	Tynes 	v. 	Fla. 	Dep’t 	of
Juv. 	Just., 	88 	F.4th 	939, 	946 	(11th 	Cir. 	2023) 	(quoting 	Smith 	v.
Lockheed-Martin 	Corp., 	644 	F.3d 	1321, 	1328 	(11th 	Cir. 	2011)).
There 	are 	several 	ways 	to 	show 	that 	an 	adverse 	employment 	action
was motivated by discriminatory intent, including direct evidence,
circumstantial 	evidence 	that 	satisfies 	the 	burden-shifting
framework 	established 	in 	McDonnell 	Douglas 	Corp. 	v. 	Green, 	411
U.S. 	792 	(1973), 	and 	a 	“convincing 	mosaic 	of 	circumstantial
evidence 	that 	would 	allow 	a 	jury 	to 	infer 	intentional
discrimination 	by 	the 	decisionmaker.” 	Tynes, 	88 	F.4th 	at 	946
(quoting Smith, 644 F.3d at 1327–28).
Here, 	Song 	did 	not 	present 	any 	direct 	evidence 	of 	race 	or
national 	origin 	discrimination. 	She 	relies 	primarily 	on 	the
McDonnell 	Douglas 	framework, 	which 	requires 	a 	plaintiff 	to 	show,
“as 	a 	preliminary 	matter, 	not 	only 	that 	she 	is 	a 	member 	of 	a
protected 	class, 	that 	she 	suffered 	an 	adverse 	employment 	action,
and that she was qualified for the job in question, but also that
she 	was 	treated 	less 	favorably 	than 	‘similarly 	situated’
individuals outside her class.” 	Lewis v. City of Union City, 918
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 13 of 22

14
F.3d 1213, 1224 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). 	Song asserts she was
paid less than Kevin Dobbin, a white associate professor. 	Even if
Song 	had 	pointed 	to 	evidence 	that 	she 	and 	Dobbin 	were 	“similarly
situated in all material respects,” id. at 1226, she did not point
to 	admissible 	evidence 	of 	their 	respective 	salaries. 	Song 	cites
an exhibit that she describes as an “Institutional Salary Chart.”
Pl.’s 	Statement 	of 	Material 	Facts 	¶¶ 6-10, 	ECF 	No. 	20-1; 	Pl.’s
Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 17, Institutional Salary Chart,
ECF 	No. 	20-17. 	Defendants 	object 	to 	Exhibit 	17 	because 	Song 	did
not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence 	to 	authenticate 	or 	explain 	it. 	Under
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	901(a), 	the 	proponent 	of 	evidence 	“must
produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is
what the proponent claims it is.” 	Or, for records generated by an
electronic 	system, 	the 	proponent 	may 	satisfy 	the 	authentication
requirement by presenting an adequate certification as required by
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	902(13). 	Here, 	Song 	did 	not 	respond 	to
Defendants’ objection and did not point to any evidence regarding
the 	origin, 	author, 	or 	accuracy 	of 	Exhibit 	17. 	Thus, 	the 	Court
may not consider Exhibit 17. 	Song pointed to no other admissible
evidence 	that 	she 	was 	paid 	less 	than 	a 	similarly 	situated
individual 	outside 	her 	protected 	class. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court
finds that Song did not present enough evidence to create a genuine
fact dispute on her pay discrimination claims, and Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on these claims.
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 14 of 22

15
Song 	also 	asserts 	that 	she 	was 	treated 	less 	favorably 	than
three 	white 	colleagues 	with 	respect 	to 	her 	performance 	reviews.
Song 	did 	not 	include 	any 	facts 	about 	these 	colleagues 	in 	her
statement 	of 	material 	facts 	or 	her 	response 	to 	Defendants’
statement of material facts. 	She did mention them in her response
brief, 	asserting 	that 	three 	colleagues 	got 	positive 	performance
reviews 	despite 	their 	failure 	to 	meet 	certain 	metrics. 	As
evidentiary support for this assertion, Song cites her deposition
testimony. 	See 	Pl.’s 	Resp. 	Br. 	20, 	ECF 	No. 	20 	(citing 	Song 	Dep.
47:6-48:3, 	48:4-10, 	ECF 	No. 	17). 	That 	testimony 	simply 	states
that John McCracken is a full professor of epidemiology, Song Dep.
47:6-48:3, 	and 	that 	Danielle 	Lambert 	and 	Jessica 	Knight 	are 	both
assistant 	professors 	of 	epidemiology, 	id. 	48:4-10. 	Song’s
citations to the record, though, do not establish that McCracken,
Lambert, and Knight were similarly situated to Song in all material
respects or that they were treated more favorably with respect to
their 	performance 	reviews. 	Thus, 	Defendants 	are 	entitled 	to
summary 	judgment 	on 	Song’s 	discrimination 	claims 	based 	on
allegedly disparate performance reviews.
In 	addition 	to 	her 	comparator 	arguments, 	Song 	summarily
contends 	that 	she 	pointed 	to 	enough 	evidence 	to 	satisfy 	the
“convincing mosaic” standard. 	Despite its “flowery language,” the
convincing mosaic analysis is “a stand-in for the Rule 56 summary
judgment 	standard 	applied 	to 	employment 	discrimination.” 	Ismael
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 15 of 22

16
v. Roundtree, No. 25-10604, 2025 WL 3492930, at *5 (11th Cir. Dec.
5, 	2025). 	“A 	‘convincing 	mosaic’ 	of 	circumstantial 	evidence 	is
simply 	enough 	evidence 	for 	a 	reasonable 	factfinder 	to 	infer
intentional 	discrimination 	in 	an 	employment 	action—the 	ultimate
inquiry in a discrimination lawsuit.” 	Tynes, 88 F.4th at 946. 	A
plaintiff 	can 	show 	a 	convincing 	mosaic 	by 	presenting 	evidence 	of
“(1) 	‘suspicious 	timing, 	ambiguous 	statements 	. . ., 	and 	other
bits 	and 	pieces 	from 	which 	an 	inference 	of 	discriminatory 	intent
might be drawn,’ (2) systematically better treatment of similarly
situated 	employees, 	and 	(3) 	that 	the 	employer’s 	justification 	is
pretextual.” 	Lewis 	v. 	City 	of 	Union 	City, 	934 	F.3d 	1169, 	1185
(11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Silverman v. Bd. of Educ., 637 F.3d 729,
734 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by, Ortiz v. Werner
Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016)). 	Here, although Song
argues that she has enough evidence to meet the “convincing mosaic”
standard, she did not specify what evidence in the present record
would 	allow 	a 	jury 	to 	infer 	that 	Defendants 	intentionally
discriminated against Song because of her race or national origin.
Song has the “burden to produce and identify evidence,” to support
her 	claims, 	and 	the 	Court 	is 	not 	required 	to 	“‘scour 	the 	record’
in 	search 	of” 	additional 	evidence. 	Black 	Box 	Royalties, 	Inc. 	v.
Universal 	Music 	Publ’g, 	Inc., 	839 	F. 	App’x 	346, 	350 	(11th 	Cir.
2020). 	Song did not identify evidence to support her “convincing
mosaic” 	argument, 	and 	the 	evidence 	she 	cited 	would 	not 	allow 	a
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 16 of 22

17
jury to infer that Defendants discriminated against her because of
her race or national origin. 	Thus, the convincing mosaic standard
does 	not 	save 	Song’s 	discrimination 	claims, 	and 	Defendants 	are
entitled to summary judgment.
II. 	Song’s Retaliation Claims
Song’s remaining claims are for retaliation. 	Both Title VII
and 	§ 1981 	protect 	employees 	from 	retaliation 	for 	opposing
unlawful 	discrimination. 	Title 	VII 	prohibits 	an 	employer 	from
retaliating 	against 	an 	employee 	“because 	[the 	employee] 	has
opposed 	any 	practice” 	made 	unlawful 	by 	Title 	VII. 	42 	U.S.C. 	§
2000e-3(a). 	Similarly, 	§ 1981 	prohibits 	an 	employer 	from
retaliating 	against 	an 	employee 	because 	she 	complained 	of 	racial
discrimination. 	CBOCS 	W., 	Inc. 	v. 	Humphries, 	553 	U.S. 	442, 	445
(2008). 	To 	establish 	a 	retaliation 	claim 	under 	Title 	VII 	or
§ 1981, Song must show “that she engaged in statutorily protected
conduct; 	she 	suffered 	an 	adverse 	employment 	action; 	and 	a 	causal
relation 	exists 	between 	the 	two 	events.” 	Berry 	v. 	Crestwood
Healthcare LP, 84 F.4th 1300, 1307 (11th Cir. 2023).
Here, 	Song 	contends 	that 	she 	engaged 	in 	activity 	protected
under 	Title 	VII 	and 	§ 1981 	when 	she 	and 	two 	colleagues 	wrote 	a
series 	of 	letters 	to 	UGA’s 	administration 	to 	protest 	alleged
preferential 	treatment 	of 	a 	white 	tenure 	candidate. 	She 	asserts
that Cordero and Davis subjected her to adverse employment actions
because 	of 	the 	letters, 	including 	Cordero’s 	“below 	expectations”
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 17 of 22

18
scholarship 	ratings 	for 	2021 	and 	2022 	and 	Davis’s 	letter 	of
counseling. 	The 	Court 	assumes 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	present 	order
that 	the 	performance 	reviews 	and 	letter 	of 	counseling 	were
materially 	adverse 	actions 	that 	would 	support 	retaliation 	claims
under 	Title 	VII 	and 	§ 1981. 	The 	remaining 	questions 	are 	(1)
whether 	the 	letters 	were 	protected 	activity 	under 	Title 	VII 	and
§ 1981 	and 	(2) 	whether 	the 	activity 	was 	a 	but-for 	cause 	of 	any
materially adverse actions.
To engage in protected activity, an employee must communicate
her 	reasonable 	belief 	that 	the 	employer’s 	conduct 	constitutes
employment 	discrimination 	that 	is 	unlawful 	under 	Title 	VII 	or
§ 1981. 	It is not enough for an employee simply to complain about
a 	supervisor’s 	conduct; 	she 	must 	complain 	that 	the 	conduct 	was
motivated 	by 	her 	race 	or 	national 	origin. 	See, 	e.g., 	Coutu 	v.
Martin 	Cnty. 	Bd. 	of 	Cnty. 	Comm’rs, 	47 	F.3d 	1068, 	1074 	(11th 	Cir.
1995) (per curiam) (“Unfair treatment, absent discrimination based
on 	race, 	sex, 	or 	national 	origin, 	is 	not 	an 	unlawful 	employment
practice under Title VII.”).
Song does not seriously argue that the first two letters—the
September 24, 2020 letter to Weeks and the October 4, 2020 letter
to Hu—were protected activity under Title VII and § 1981, and the
Court 	finds 	that 	they 	were 	not. 	Neither 	letter 	identified 	its
authors 	by 	name, 	and 	neither 	letter 	mentioned 	race, 	national
origin, 	discrimination, 	or 	retaliation 	for 	complaints 	of 	race 	or
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 18 of 22

19
national origin discrimination. 	Accordingly, the two 2020 letters
are not protected activity under Title VII or § 1981.
The third letter, to which Song did sign her name, focuses on
Cordero’s 	alleged 	abuses 	of 	power, 	the 	lack 	of 	investigation 	by
the 	provost’s 	office 	into 	the 	Swartzendruber 	tenure 	issue, 	and
Cordero’s 	alleged 	favoritism 	toward 	Shen 	and 	Swartzendruber.
Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	H, 	Letter 	from 	X. 	Song 	et 	al. 	to 	J. 	Hu
(Sep. 9, 2021), ECF No. 16-6. 	The letter does opine that Weeks’s
failure 	to 	produce 	a 	report 	was 	“a 	dangerous 	signal 	sent 	from
Provost’s 	office 	showing 	its 	stance 	and 	permissiveness 	over
wrongdoings 	in 	academic 	integrity 	and 	fairness, 	and 	importantly,
in the wake of correcting anti-Asian bias nationwide.” 	Id. at 1.
But 	nothing 	in 	the 	letter 	explains 	how 	the 	lack 	of 	a 	report 	from
Weeks regarding the prior complaints—which did not mention race or
national 	origin 	discrimination 	or 	retaliation 	for 	complaints 	of
race or national origin discrimination—relates to anti-Asian bias.
The only part of the five-page letter that remotely connects
race or national origin to an employment decision is the following
sentence: “Drs. Zhang and Song, both are Asian females, were also
excluded 	by 	Dr. 	Jose 	Cordero 	from 	attending 	the 	preliminary
consideration 	meeting 	on 	[the 	Swartzendruber 	tenure] 	case.” 	Id.
It 	is 	a 	stretch 	to 	infer 	from 	this 	language 	that 	Song 	and 	Zhang
were 	claiming 	that 	they 	were 	excluded 	from 	the 	meeting 	because
they 	were 	Asian 	women. 	Moreover, 	it 	is 	not 	clear 	how 	their
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 19 of 22

20
exclusion from a preliminary meeting about another person’s tenure
decision 	would 	give 	rise 	to 	a 	good 	faith, 	objectively 	reasonable
belief that Cordero unlawfully discriminated against them because
of their race or national origin by treating them worse than non-
Asian 	or 	non-Chinese 	employees 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	terms 	and
conditions of their employment. 	See Clover v. Total Sys. Servs.,
Inc., 	176 	F.3d 	1346, 	1351 	(11th 	Cir. 	1999) 	(explaining 	that 	for
activity to be protected under Title VII’s opposition clause, the
employee 	must 	have 	an 	objectively 	reasonable 	belief 	that 	her
employer engaged in an employment practice made unlawful by Title
VII). 	Accordingly, the Court doubts that the September 2021 letter
to Hu is protected activity under Title VII and § 1981.
Even if the September 2021 letter was protected activity under
Title 	VII 	and 	§ 1981, 	Song 	must 	show 	a 	causal 	connection 	between
the 	protected 	activity 	and 	the 	adverse 	employment 	action. 	To 	do
that, she has to show that the relevant decisionmaker was aware of
the 	protected 	conduct 	and 	that 	the 	protected 	conduct 	“was 	a 	but-
for cause of the alleged adverse action.” 	Yelling v. St. Vincent’s
Health 	Sys., 	82 	F.4th 	1329, 	1338 	(11th 	Cir. 	2023) 	(per 	curiam)
(quoting Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362
(2013)) (stating that both Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims
require 	“but 	for” 	causation). 	Thus, 	Song 	must 	prove 	that 	if 	she
had not complained of race or national origin discrimination, she
would not have suffered an adverse action.
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 20 of 22

21
There is no dispute that Cordero was the decisionmaker on the
March 2022 and February 2023 performance reviews and Davis was the
decisionmaker 	on 	the 	March 	2022 	letter 	of 	counseling. 	Song 	did
not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence 	that 	Cordero 	or 	Davis 	was 	aware 	of 	the
September 2021 letter. 	The letter is addressed to Hu, it does not
indicate that it was copied to Cordero or Davis, and Song did not
point 	to 	any 	evidence 	indicating 	that 	they 	received 	it. 	Thus,
Song did not establish that the two decisionmakers were aware she
engaged 	in 	protected 	activity, 	so 	the 	performance 	reviews 	and
letter 	of 	counseling 	could 	not 	have 	been 	in 	retaliation 	for 	the
September 	2021 	letter. 	Even 	if 	the 	Court 	were 	to 	accept 	Song’s
apparent assumption that Cordero and Davis somehow knew about the
September 	2021 	letter, 	Song 	also 	did 	not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence
that 	the 	letter 	was 	a 	but-for 	cause 	of 	any 	materially 	adverse
action. 	A very close temporal proximity between a decisionmaker’s
knowledge of protected conduct and a materially adverse action may
create a genuine fact dispute on causation, but “a three to four-
month 	gap 	in 	proximity 	is 	too 	long 	to 	show 	causal 	connection” 	in
the absence of other evidence of causation. 	Ceus v. City of Tampa,
803 	F. 	App’x 	235, 	249 	(11th 	Cir. 	2020) 	(per 	curiam); 	see 	also
Goldsmith 	v. 	Bagby 	Elevator 	Co., 	513 	F.3d 	1261, 	1278 	(11th 	Cir.
2008) (finding evidence of a causal connection between an October
2001 	EEOC 	charge 	and 	June 	2002 	termination 	because 	the 	plaintiff
was 	fired 	“immediately 	after 	and 	because 	he” 	engaged 	in 	the
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 21 of 22

22
additional 	protected 	activity 	of 	refusing 	to 	sign 	an 	arbitration
agreement 	that 	would 	have 	required 	him 	to 	arbitrate 	the 	pending
EEOC 	charge). 	Here, 	all 	the 	adverse 	actions 	Song 	relies 	on
occurred 	at 	least 	six 	months 	after 	Song 	sent 	the 	September 	2021
letter 	to 	Hu, 	and 	Song 	did 	not 	point 	to 	other 	evidence 	of
causation. 	For 	all 	of 	these 	reasons, 	Defendants 	are 	entitled 	to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims.
CONCLUSION
As 	discussed 	above, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Song 	did 	not
establish a genuine fact dispute on any of her claims. 	The Court
thus grants Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 14).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of December, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 3:24-cv-00056-CDL Document 26 Filed 12/15/25 Page 22 of 22