ZHANG v. 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
MING ZHANG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA,
et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-149 (CDL)
O R D E R
Ming 	Zhang 	was 	a 	professor 	at 	the 	University 	of 	Georgia’s
College 	of 	Public 	Health. 	Zhang 	contends 	that 	Defendants
discriminated against her based on her national origin (Chinese),
in 	violation 	of 	Title 	VII 	of 	the 	Civil 	Rights 	Act 	of 	1964, 	42
U.S.C. 	§ 	2000e, 	et 	seq., 	and 	her 	race 	(Asian 	American), 	in
violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 	She also claims that
her supervisors retaliated against her after she complained about
perceived 	preferential 	treatment 	of 	a 	white 	tenure 	candidate’s
application, in violation of Title VII and § 1981. 	Finally, Zhang
alleges 	that 	she 	became 	disabled 	and 	that 	Defendants 	failed 	to
accommodate 	her 	disability, 	in 	violation 	of 	§ 504 	of 	the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 	Presently pending before the
Court is Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 	For the reasons set
forth below, the Court grants the motion (ECF No. 43).
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 48

2
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
Viewed 	in 	the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	Zhang, 	the 	record
reveals 	the 	following 	facts. 	This 	case 	is 	not 	complicated, 	but
the Court’s recitation of the facts is lengthy because the parties
do not agree on what the exhibits say and mean.
Ming Zhang was a professor at the University of Georgia, where
she 	worked 	in 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health’s 	Department 	of
Epidemiology 	and 	Biostatistics. 	She 	is 	an 	Asian 	American 	person
of 	Chinese 	origin. 	Zhang 	began 	working 	at 	UGA 	in 	2010 	as 	an
assistant 	professor 	in 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health. 	She 	was
promoted 	to 	associate 	professor 	with 	tenure 	in 	2017. 	During 	the
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 48

3
timeframe 	relevant 	to 	this 	action, 	Zhang’s 	direct 	supervisor 	was
Jose 	Cordero, 	who 	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.
I. 	Zhang’s Complaints About the Department and Cordero
In 	2020, 	Zhang 	served 	on 	the 	promotion 	and 	tenure 	committee
for Andrea Swartzendruber, an assistant professor of epidemiology.
Zhang 	claims 	that 	she 	did 	not 	receive 	an 	electronic 	calendar
invitation 	to 	a 	July 	2020 	committee 	meeting 	regarding 	a 	pre-
evaluation 	of 	Swartzendruber’s 	tenure 	application. 	Zhang 	did
receive 	notification 	of 	an 	August 	2020 	committee 	meeting, 	which
she 	attended. 	During 	that 	meeting, 	Zhang 	and 	another 	professor,
Xiao Song, raised issues with Swartzendruber’s tenure application,
asserting that Swartzendruber did not meet the College’s teaching
load requirements and that the dossier supporting her application
contained 	false 	information. 	Zhang 	also 	argued 	that
Swartzendruber 	was 	not 	yet 	eligible 	to 	be 	considered 	for 	tenure.
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. 	5, 	Letter 	from 	J.
Cordero to Committee 1 (Sep. 15, 2020), ECF No. 44-2.
Cordero 	asserts 	that 	after 	the 	vote, 	he 	investigated 	the
concerns 	raised 	by 	Zhang 	and 	Song, 	concluded 	that 	Swartzendruber
had 	not 	made 	any 	material 	misrepresentations 	in 	her 	dossier, 	and
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 48

4
issued 	a 	letter 	regarding 	his 	findings 	to 	the 	tenure 	committee.
Id. 	Cordero 	noted 	that 	Swartzendruber 	satisfied 	the 	teaching
requirement 	because 	she 	had 	taught 	at 	least 	one 	course 	per
semester, and for those semesters when she only taught one course,
a 	UGA 	business 	manager 	confirmed 	that 	Swartzendruber 	completed 	a
course buyout that allowed her to apply external grant funds toward
her state-funded instruction time. 	Cordero also noted that there
had 	been 	a 	“misunderstanding” 	within 	the 	Department 	that 	faculty
members 	could 	not 	apply 	for 	tenure 	until 	after 	their 	fifth 	year.
Id. at 2. 	But, according to UGA’s Office of Faculty Affairs, there
was a “tricky” caveat that even though a candidate completing her
fourth 	year 	is 	not 	“fully 	eligible 	to 	apply” 	for 	tenure 	when
preliminary consideration of tenure applications occurs during the
spring, she would be eligible by the time of formal consideration
in the fall and could therefore apply for preliminary consideration
before she is fully eligible. 	Id. 	Based on that new information
from 	the 	Office 	of 	Faculty 	Affairs, 	the 	Department 	informed 	the
two 	faculty 	members 	who 	previously 	believed 	that 	they 	were 	not
eligible 	to 	submit 	a 	tenure 	application 	in 	2020 	that 	they 	could,
after all, apply for preliminary consideration. 	Id. 	One of those
faculty members was Swartzendruber, and she promptly submitted her
application in July 2020.
Cordero 	later 	sent 	Zhang 	a 	letter 	of 	counseling, 	which
chastised 	Zhang 	for 	waiting 	until 	the 	August 	27 	meeting 	to 	raise
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 48

5
her 	concerns 	about 	Swartzendruber’s 	tenure 	application, 	without
prior 	notice. 	Pl.’s 	Resp. 	to 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	4, 	Letter
from J. Cordero to M. Zhang (Sep. 23, 2020), ECF No. 50-4. 	Cordero
also 	expressed 	concern 	that 	Zhang’s 	conduct 	during 	the 	meeting
“was 	unbecoming 	for 	a 	faculty 	member” 	because 	she 	repeatedly
interrupted other committee members. 	Id. at 1.
After Cordero issued the letter of counseling, Zhang and Song,
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. 	6,
Letter from Group of Faculty to E. Weeks (Sep. 24, 2020), ECF No.
44-3. 	The 	letter 	stated 	that 	“faculty 	A” 	and 	“faculty 	B” 	were
excluded 	from 	the 	preliminary 	meeting 	about 	Swartzendruber. 	It
also 	raised 	concerns 	about 	Swartzendruber’s 	application, 	accused
Cordero 	of 	placing 	a 	retaliatory 	letter 	in 	Zhang’s 	personnel
record, 	and 	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.
The 	next 	month, 	Song, 	Zhang, 	and 	Huang 	submitted 	another
letter 	from 	the 	“Group 	of 	Faculty 	Members 	at 	the 	Department 	of
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 48

6
Epidemiology 	and 	Biostatistics,” 	this 	time 	to 	Senior 	Vice
President 	for 	Academic 	Affairs 	and 	Provost 	Jack 	Hu. 	Defs.’ 	Mot.
Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	7, 	Letter 	from 	Group 	of 	Faculty 	to 	J. 	Hu 	(Oct. 	4,
2020), 	ECF 	No. 	44-4. 	The 	authors 	did 	not 	identify 	themselves 	in
the 	letter. 	The 	letter 	accused 	Cordero 	of 	manipulating 	the
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 1-
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. 8, Letter from M. Zhang et al. to J. Hu (Sep. 9,
2021), ECF No. 44-5. 	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
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 48

7
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 	that 	Cordero 	“retaliated 	fiercely 	against 	Drs.
Zhang 	and 	Song, 	who 	raised 	legitimate 	questions 	about”
Swartzendruber 	during 	the 	August 	2020 	tenure 	committee 	meeting.
Id. 	The 	letter 	further 	stated 	that 	Cordero 	was 	biased 	toward
Swartzendruber and Shen, “two faculty members . . . that are close
to 	him.” 	Id. 	at 	3. 	Finally, 	the 	letter 	asked 	Hu 	to 	keep 	the
authors’ “reports confidential.” 	Id. at 5.
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 October 2021 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
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 48

8
raised legitimate questions.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 9, Letter
from M. Zhang et al. to J. Hu 1-2 (Oct. 11, 2021), ECF No. 44-6.
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
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.
12, Epidemiology & Biostatistics Review 1, ECF No. 44-9.
In 	an 	undated 	report 	that 	was 	forwarded 	to 	Zhang, 	Song, 	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 	noted 	that 	the
Department’s 	tone 	was 	“tense,” 	with 	individuals 	who 	interacted
with 	the 	complainants 	(Song, 	Zhang, 	and 	Huang) 	“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
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 8 of 48

9
behaviors 	during 	the 	interviews” 	that 	were 	consistent 	with
descriptions 	of 	“disruptive 	behavior” 	they 	had 	been 	told 	about,
including 	unnamed 	individuals 	“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 	report 	also 	stated 	that 	the
“uncomfortable environment” in the Department was “largely due to
one individual,” who had “created a divide” within the Department.
Id. 	Zhang understood that she was the “one individual” referenced
in 	the 	report. 	The 	review 	committee’s 	report 	does 	not 	reference
complaints of race or national origin discrimination or complaints
of retaliation.
II. 	Zhang’s 2021-2022 Teaching Assignments
As an associate professor, Zhang was expected to devote fifty
percent 	of 	her 	employment 	effort 	to 	teaching, 	forty-five 	percent
to 	research, 	and 	five 	percent 	to 	service. 	When 	she 	was 	hired,
Zhang 	was 	informed 	that 	her 	teaching 	load 	would 	be 	designated 	by
the College of Public Health and that course buyouts would follow
the College’s policy on teaching load. 	Under the policy, a tenured
faculty 	member 	like 	Zhang, 	who 	was 	on 	a 	nine-month 	contract 	with
a 	teaching 	effort 	of 	fifty 	percent, 	was 	“expected 	to 	teach 	four
three-semester-hour 	courses 	per 	year 	or 	equivalent 	(12 	credit
hours).” 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	13, 	Policy 	on 	Teaching 	Load 	1
(Jan. 1, 2021), ECF No. 44-10. 	The policy outlined the activities
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 9 of 48

10
that 	could 	count 	toward 	the 	twelve-hour 	teaching 	load, 	including
formal 	courses 	(counted 	at 	face 	value) 	and 	supervising 	graduate
and undergraduate research (calculated based on a formula set forth
in 	the 	policy). 	Id. 	The 	policy 	allows 	faculty 	“involved 	in
externally 	funded 	projects” 	to 	“buy 	out 	of 	state-funded 	budgeted
time for instruction by charging the time to the grant or contract
as a proportion of salary.” 	Id. at 2. 	The policy provides buyout
rates, 	and 	it 	states: 	“The 	maximum 	number 	of 	courses 	one 	can 	buy
out 	is 	3 	courses 	(9 	credits). 	Everyone 	must 	teach 	one 	three-hour
course 	per 	academic 	year.” 	Id. 	The 	policy 	also 	outlines 	buyout
procedures; 	instructional 	buyouts 	“must 	be 	approved 	by 	the
Department Head and the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs.” 	Id.
The 	policy 	states 	that 	faculty 	should 	complete 	an 	online 	request
form to submit a buyout request, then once the request was “fully
approved,” 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health’s 	business 	office 	would
handle the necessary funding changes. 	Id.
In 	January 	2021, 	Zhang 	emailed 	Cordero 	to 	ask 	if 	she 	could
“buy 	out 	courses 	in 	advance, 	like 	paying 	in 	Spring 	2021 	and 	get
course release in Fall 2021 or Spring 2022.” 	Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 13, Email from M. Zhang to J. Cordero (Jan. 20,
2021, 	2:47 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	50-6. 	Cordero 	responded, 	“Yes, 	you 	can
buyout 	this 	semester 	and 	apply 	it 	for 	Fall 	2021 	or 	Spring 	2022[,
but] the extension cannot go beyond Spring 2022.” 	Id., Email from
J. 	Cordero 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Jan. 	20, 	2021, 	5:38 	PM). 	Zhang 	contends
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 10 of 48

11
that this email chain establishes that she “secured course buyouts
for 	her 	Spring 	2022 	classes.” 	Pl.’s 	Statement 	of 	Material 	Facts
¶ 23, 	ECF 	No. 	50-1. 	But 	she 	did 	not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence 	that
she 	submitted 	a 	formal 	buyout 	request 	that 	was 	fully 	approved 	by
the Department and the College. 	She also did not point to evidence
that 	any 	formal 	buyout 	approval 	authorized 	her 	to 	buy 	out 	two
courses in fall 2021 plus two courses in spring 2022.
In 	October 	2021, 	associate 	department 	head 	Andreas 	Handel
emailed 	Zhang 	to 	ask 	which 	time 	slot 	she 	preferred 	to 	teach 	an
Epidemiology 4070 course during spring 2022. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.
Ex. 14, Email from A. Handel to M. Zhang (Oct. 22, 2021, 3:34 PM),
ECF 	No. 	44-11. 	Zhang 	replied 	that 	she 	had 	“one 	mentoring 	credit
and one course buyout” to be used in spring 2022. 	Id., Email from
M. Zhang to A. Handel (Oct. 22, 2021, 3:41 PM). 	Handel responded
that because Zhang bought out two courses for fall 2021, she could
only buy out one course for spring 2022. 	Id., Email from A. Handel
to M. Zhang (Oct. 22, 2021, 3:48 PM). 	Zhang replied that for Fall
2021 she had “one course buyout and one course credit” for teaching
two prior practicum courses. 	Id., Email from M. Zhang to A. Handel
(Oct. 22, 2021, 3:59 PM). 	Handel responded that “per college rules
everyone 	needs 	to 	do 	at 	minimum 	1 	[course] 	per 	academic 	year.”
Id., Email from A. Handel to M. Zhang (Oct. 22, 2021, 4:09 PM).
A 	week 	and 	a 	half 	after 	Handel’s 	emails 	with 	Zhang, 	Cordero
emailed 	Zhang 	about 	the 	situation. 	He 	stated 	that 	he 	understood
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 11 of 48

12
Zhang “requested to have buyouts that would mean that” Zhang would
“not 	be 	teaching 	in 	the 	Spring 	semester.” 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J.
Ex. 15, Email from J. Cordero to M. Zhang (Nov. 2, 2021, 4:54 PM),
ECF 	No. 	44-12. 	Cordero 	stated 	that 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health
required 	all 	faculty 	members 	teach 	“at 	least 	one 	course 	a 	year,”
so 	she 	would 	have 	to 	teach 	a 	class 	in 	spring 	2022. 	Id. 	He
suggested that Zhang teach a section of Epidemiology 4070, a course
she had taught for nine years. 	Id. 	Zhang replied that she thought
mentoring 	counted 	for 	course 	teaching 	and 	that 	she 	already 	had 	a
spending 	plan 	for 	her 	grants 	that 	would 	be 	difficult 	to 	meet 	if
she had to teach a lecture course in spring 2022. 	Id., Email from
M. Zhang to J. Cordero (Nov. 2, 2021, 5:20 PM). 	Cordero responded
that 	Davis 	decided 	“that 	all 	faculty 	must 	teach 	at 	least 	one
course” 	and 	that 	mentoring 	and 	buyouts 	“can 	cover 	up 	to 	three
courses.” 	Id., 	Email 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Nov. 	2, 	2021,
5:28 PM).
The 	next 	week, 	Cordero 	informed 	Zhang 	that 	he 	had 	met 	with
Davis 	and 	Senior 	Associate 	Dean 	for 	Research 	and 	Faculty 	Affairs
Timothy 	Heckman 	regarding 	Zhang’s 	“request 	to 	buy 	out 	all 	[her]
teaching load” for the 2021-2022 academic year. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ.
J. 	Ex. 	16, 	Email 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Nov. 	9, 	2021), 	ECF
No. 	44-13. 	Cordero 	stated 	that 	the 	3.55 	mentoring 	credit 	hours
Zhang 	accumulated 	in 	2020 	and 	2021 	plus 	a 	course 	buyout 	covered
Zhang’s 	teaching 	obligations 	for 	fall 	2021, 	but 	for 	spring 	2022,
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 12 of 48

13
Zhang 	would 	need 	to 	complete 	another 	buyout 	to 	release 	a 	three-
credit 	course 	and 	should 	“complete 	the 	buyout 	process 	as 	soon 	as
possible.” 	Id. 	Finally, 	Cordero 	stated 	that 	the 	fourth 	three-
credit course “will need to be covered by teaching” and that Zhang
was 	“scheduled 	to 	teach 	EPID 	4070 	on 	Tuesdays 	and 	Thursdays 	from
09:35 AM – 10:50 AM.” 	Id.
Zhang began teaching the Epidemiology 4070 course in January
2022. 	On 	January 	20, 	2022, 	Zhang 	reported 	to 	Cordero 	that 	she
held the class via Zoom that day because she had “a cold” and had
“only rested for a couple of hours” the night before. 	Defs.’ Mot.
Summ. J. Ex. 18, Email from M. Zhang to J. Cordero (Jan. 20, 2022,
5:49 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	44-15. 	The 	next 	day, 	Zhang 	met 	with 	Cordero,
Davis, and Heckman to discuss her teaching obligation. 	During the
meeting, 	Davis 	reiterated 	that 	Zhang 	was 	required 	to 	teach 	one
three-credit course and that if Zhang failed to teach the course,
she would be subject to disciplinary action. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.
Ex. 	19, 	M. 	Davis 	File 	Memo, 	ECF 	No. 	44-16. 	Zhang 	“was 	given 	the
opportunity 	to 	change 	her 	stance 	on 	not 	teaching.” 	Id. 	Zhang
told 	Cordero 	and 	Davis 	during 	the 	meeting 	that 	she 	was 	feeling
stressed and having trouble sleeping. 	Zhang asserts that she also
informed 	Davis 	and 	Cordero 	that 	she 	had 	been 	experiencing 	“rapid
heartbeat, shortness of breath and chest pain.” 	Zhang Decl. ¶ 4,
ECF No. 50-24.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 13 of 48

14
On 	January 	24, 	2022, 	Zhang 	emailed 	Cordero, 	copying 	Davis,
and 	said 	it 	was 	“time 	to 	find 	a 	new 	instructor 	for” 	Epidemiology
4070 	and 	that 	she 	had 	been 	“risking 	[her] 	health 	to 	help 	[with
the] course for the last two weeks.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 17,
Email 	from 	M. 	Zhang 	to 	J. 	Cordero 	(Jan. 	24, 	2022, 	11:39 	PM), 	ECF
No. 44-14. 	She stated that she would cover the class on that week
and 	would 	meet 	with 	the 	new 	instructor 	“to 	ensure 	a 	smooth
transition.” 	Id. 	The same day, she told Davis that she “did not
feel well last a couple of days [sic].” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex.
21, Email from M. Zhang to M. Davis (Jan. 24, 2022, 4:08 PM), ECF
No. 45-1.
On 	January 	28, 	2022, 	Cordero 	emailed 	Zhang 	because 	she 	had
expressed concerns about her health and he “wanted to see how” she
felt. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	22, 	Email 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	M.
Zhang (Jan. 28, 2022, 3:28 PM), ECF No. 45-2. 	He also stated that
there were “resources available within UGA” regarding FMLA (Family
and Medical Leave Act) and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act),
and 	he 	included 	links 	to 	UGA 	websites 	that 	provided 	FMLA 	and 	ADA
resources 	for 	employees. 	Id. 	Zhang 	responded 	that 	she 	had
previously 	taken 	FMLA 	leave 	and 	would 	“take 	it 	if 	needed.” 	Id.,
Email from M. Zhang to J. Cordero (Jan. 29, 2022, 5:38 PM).
The 	Department 	hired 	Edmond 	Maes 	to 	teach 	the 	remainder 	of
the 	Epidemiology 	4070 	course. 	On 	March 	11, 	2022, 	Davis 	issued
Zhang 	a 	letter 	“initiating 	disciplinary 	action” 	based 	on 	Zhang’s
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 14 of 48

15
failure to teach at least one class for the academic year. 	Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 23, Letter from M. Davis to M. Zhang 2 (Mar. 11,
2022), 	ECF 	No. 	45-3. 	The 	first 	step 	in 	the 	disciplinary 	process
was 	a 	March 	18, 	2022, 	meeting 	between 	Zhang 	and 	Davis, 	Cordero,
Heckman, 	and 	Vice 	Provost 	Rodrigues. 	During 	that 	meeting, 	UGA
offered 	Zhang 	a 	settlement 	in 	lieu 	of 	“proceeding 	with 	the
disciplinary process.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 24, Email from M.
Davis 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Mar. 	20, 	2022, 	9:03 	AM), 	ECF 	No. 	45-4. 	Under
the 	terms 	of 	the 	proposed 	settlement, 	Zhang’s 	contract 	for 	2021-
2022 would “be pro-rated to reflect the number of classes [Zhang]
taught and the remainder [would] be owed to [UGA],” and Zhang would
have 	to 	work 	out 	a 	“repayment 	schedule.” 	Id. 	The 	proposed
settlement 	would 	also 	allow 	Zhang 	to 	count 	“mentoring 	credits”
toward 	her 	teaching 	load 	for 	the 	next 	academic 	year. 	Id. 	The
letter 	summarizing 	the 	proposed 	settlement 	stated 	that 	if 	Zhang
did 	not 	agree 	to 	the 	settlement 	terms, 	then 	the 	College 	would
proceed with the second step of the disciplinary process. 	Id. 	In
her 	response 	to 	the 	proposed 	settlement, 	Zhang 	stated 	she 	would
agree 	to 	the 	settlement 	after 	several 	items 	were 	addressed,
including (1) “disciplinary action with a paycheck deduction” for
Davis and Cordero for their role in the “miscommunication,” (2) an
audit 	to 	determine 	how 	the 	teaching 	load 	policy 	had 	been 	applied
in 	the 	Department 	for 	the 	previous 	five 	years, 	(3) 	arranging 	to
pay for the spring 2022 course from Zhang’s grants instead of her
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 15 of 48

16
paycheck, 	and 	(4) 	withdrawal 	of 	the 	allegations 	against 	Zhang.
Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 25, Email from M. Zhang to M. Davis (Mar.
21, 2022, 4:57 PM), ECF No. 45-5.
The 	next 	day, 	after 	Davis 	received 	Zhang’s 	response, 	Davis
sent 	Zhang 	an 	email 	stating 	that 	because 	Zhang 	“did 	not 	agree 	to
the settlement letter as written,” the College would “proceed with
the 	second 	step 	of 	the 	disciplinary 	process.” 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ.
J. 	Ex. 	26, 	Email 	from 	M. 	Davis 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Mar. 	22, 	2022, 	4:16
PM), 	ECF 	No. 	45-6. 	On 	March 	30, 	2022, 	Davis 	wrote 	to 	Provost 	Hu
to request commencement of formal disciplinary proceedings against
Zhang for neglect of duty, disruption of teaching activities, and
violation 	of 	UGA 	policies. 	An 	ad 	hoc 	committee 	was 	appointed 	to
advise 	UGA 	President 	Jere 	Morehead 	whether 	disciplinary 	action
should 	be 	taken 	against 	Zhang. 	The 	ad 	hoc 	committee 	began 	its
inquiry in June 2022. 	It did not issue a report to Morehead until
after the fall 2022 semester started.
The ad hoc committee issued a report to Morehead on September
8, 	2022. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	33, 	Letter 	from 	Comm. 	to 	J.
Morehead 	(Sep. 	8, 	2022), 	ECF 	No. 	45-13. 	The 	committee 	concluded
that 	there 	was 	“dysfunction 	within 	the 	department,” 	that 	the
teaching policy requiring faculty members to teach one course per
year 	was 	“open 	to 	interpretation,” 	that 	a 	“breakdown 	occurred 	in
the process of approving and communicating” Zhang’s course buyouts
for 	2021-2022, 	and 	that 	Zhang 	and 	the 	department 	“share[d]
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 16 of 48

17
responsibility for what happened.” 	Id. 	at 1. 	The committee found
that 	although 	the 	department 	head 	and 	dean 	“clearly 	and
unequivocally indicated to the relevant parties” that Zhang “would
be 	required 	to 	teach 	a 	specific 	classroom 	course 	during 	Spring
2022,” 	Zhang 	“refused” 	to 	teach 	the 	course, 	citing 	“her
understanding 	that 	she 	had 	been 	approved 	for 	a 	two-course 	buyout
for 	Spring 	2022.” 	Id. 	at 	1-2. 	The 	committee 	did 	not 	recommend
formal 	disciplinary 	proceedings, 	but 	it 	did 	recommend 	that 	Zhang
be 	required 	to 	“use 	her 	mentoring 	credit 	to 	retroactively 	‘buy
out’ 	the 	Spring 	2022 	course 	she 	failed 	to 	teach, 	and 	she 	must
expect and plan to teach at least one classroom course per academic
year in the future.” 	Id. at 2.
Morehead sent Zhang a letter regarding the ad hoc committee’s
recommendations. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	34, 	Letter 	from 	J.
Morehead 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Sep. 	19, 	2022), 	ECF 	No. 	45-14. 	Morehead
stated that he understood that Zhang “refused” to continue teaching
Epidemiology 4070 after January 26, 2022. 	Id. 	He explained that
he considered this refusal “to be a serious and grave abandonment
of 	teaching 	responsibilities 	. . . 	and 	a 	significant 	breach 	of
professional 	responsibility 	as 	a 	faculty 	member.” 	Id. 	Morehead
noted that although the ad hoc committee recommended allowing Zhang
to 	use 	mentoring 	credit 	retroactively 	to 	buy 	out 	the 	spring 	2022
course, Zhang did “not have sufficient mentoring credit to do so.”
Id. 	Thus, Morehead accepted the ad hoc committee’s recommendations
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 17 of 48

18
“with 	the 	modified 	condition 	that 	[Zhang] 	agree 	to 	teach 	an
additional 	course 	for 	spring 	2023 	. . . 	. 	in 	addition 	to 	the
Committee’s 	recommendation 	that 	[Zhang] 	expect 	and 	plan 	to 	teach
at 	least 	one 	classroom 	course 	per 	academic 	year 	in 	the 	future.”
Id. 	Morehead instructed Zhang to respond and indicate whether she
agreed 	to 	the 	modified 	recommendation; 	if 	Zhang 	did 	not 	agree,
then 	Morehead 	would 	“direct 	the 	continuation 	of 	dismissal
proceedings.” 	Id. 	Zhang 	responded 	to 	Morehead’s 	letter 	and 	did
not 	accept 	his 	conditions. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	36, 	Letter
from M. Zhang to J. Morehead (Oct. 10, 2022), ECF No. 45-16. 	She
argued, 	among 	other 	things, 	that 	she 	did 	have 	enough 	mentoring
credit to cover the spring 2022 course and that Cordero and Davis
should be removed from their leadership positions. 	Id.
III. Zhang’s Fall 2022 Teaching Assignment
Before the ad hoc committee issued its recommendation on the
disciplinary issue, Zhang was assigned to teach Epidemiology 4070
during 	fall 	2022. 	Zhang 	asserts 	that 	she 	got 	permission 	to 	buy
out the course, but the only evidence she cited in support of this
assertion—the January 2021 email from Cordero—does not support it.
As 	discussed 	above, 	that 	email 	was 	not 	an 	approval 	of 	a 	formal
buyout 	request. 	Plus, 	the 	email 	explicitly 	stated 	that 	if 	Zhang
wanted 	to 	complete 	a 	buyout 	in 	spring 	2021, 	she 	could 	“apply 	it
for Fall 2021 or Spring 2022[, but] the extension cannot go beyond
Spring 	2022.” 	Pl.’s 	Resp. 	to 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	13, 	Email
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 18 of 48

19
from J. Cordero to M. Zhang (Jan. 20, 2021, 5:38 PM), ECF No. 50-
6 (emphasis added).
On 	August 	28, 	2022, 	Zhang 	emailed 	Cordero 	to 	request 	a
teaching assistant for the class. 	It is not clear whether Cordero
responded to that message, but he did send Davis an email stating
that there were only three teaching assistants for the Department,
who 	were 	assigned 	as 	follows: 	one 	to 	Professor 	Mallis, 	who 	was
“new” 	and 	had 	eighty-five 	students 	in 	four 	courses 	(two 	sections
of Epidemiology 4070 and two sections of Biostatistics 2010); one
to Professor Shen, who had fifty-three students in one course; and
one to Professor Fox, who was “new” and had forty students in one
course. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 32, Email from J. Cordero to M.
Davis 	(Sep. 	1, 	2022, 	10:01 	AM), 	ECF 	No. 	45-12. 	The 	email 	also
stated that five professors were not assigned teaching assistants:
Professor 	Kyle, 	who 	had 	150 	students 	in 	four 	courses; 	Professor
Joey, who had 117 students in four courses; Professor Winter, who
had seventy-one students in two courses; Professor Zhang, who had
thirty-nine students in one course; and Professor Lambert, who had
thirty-three students in one course. 	Id.
Zhang 	again 	requested 	a 	teaching 	assistant 	on 	September 	14,
2022. 	Cordero responded that the Department had “a limited number
of 	TAs” 	and 	that 	teaching 	assistants 	were 	assigned 	to 	faculty
members 	with 	less 	teaching 	experience 	and 	more 	students. 	Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 31, Email from J. Cordero to M. Zhang (Sep. 14,
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 19 of 48

20
2022, 	2:06 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	45-11. 	Zhang 	contends 	that 	one 	of 	the
professors who was assigned a teaching assistant—Nicholas Mallis—
only 	had 	a 	total 	of 	twenty-four 	students 	in 	his 	two 	sections 	of
Epidemiology 4070 and that under Cordero’s 2020 teaching assistant
assignment 	process 	Zhang 	should 	have 	had 	priority 	for 	a 	teaching
assistant 	because 	she 	had 	more 	students 	in 	her 	one 	section 	of
Epidemiology 4070. 	Under the 2020 process, the “priority to assign
TAs [was] based on class enrollment, starting with those with the
larger 	enrollment.” 	Pl.’s 	Resp. 	to 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	35,
Email 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	Epi 	Bio 	Faculty 	& 	Staff 	(Sep. 	30, 	2020,
9:25 AM), ECF No. 50-23. 	Using that process in 2020, two teaching
assistants 	were 	assigned 	to 	assist 	three 	instructors 	with
Biostatistics 	2010 	and 	Biostatistics 	3000, 	and 	two 	teaching
assistants 	were 	assigned 	to 	assist 	two 	instructors 	with
Epidemiology 	4070. 	Id. 	Zhang 	did 	not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence 	to
refute 	Defendants’ 	evidence 	that 	during 	fall 	2022 	Mallis 	had 	a
total of eighty-five students across two sections of Epidemiology
4070 	and 	two 	sections 	of 	Biostatistics 	2010. 	Zhang 	does 	dispute
that 	Mallis 	was 	a 	“new” 	professor 	because 	he 	“co-taught
Epidemiology 4070” before fall 2022, Zhang Decl. ¶ 3, but she did
not 	point 	to 	evidence 	that 	Mallis 	had 	independently 	taught 	the
course before fall 2022.
In 	mid-September 	2022, 	one 	of 	Zhang’s 	Epidemiology 	4070
students emailed Davis about the class. 	He stated that his section
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 20 of 48

21
did not have a teaching assistant and that it “may become an issue
in 	the 	coming 	weeks” 	because 	Zhang 	was 	“overwhelmed 	with
maintaining all aspects of th[e] course by herself.” 	Defs.’ Mot.
Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	35, 	Email 	from 	W. 	Pitts 	to 	M. 	Davis 	(Sep. 	20, 	2022,
12:26 PM), ECF No. 45-15. 	The student asked if a TA could be added
to the course. 	Id. 	Davis checked in with the student on October
13 “to see how class [was] going.” 	Id., Email from M. Davis to W.
Pitts 	(Oct. 	13, 	2022, 	11:07 	AM). 	The 	student 	responded 	that
although Zhang was “very passionate” about the class and he enjoyed
the 	content 	she 	was 	teaching, 	it 	seemed 	like 	Zhang 	was 	“quite
overwhelmed” 	because 	students 	were 	still 	awaiting 	grades 	from 	a
September 15 case study and a September 22 exam. 	Id., Email from
W. Pitts to M. Davis (Oct. 13, 2022, 11:52 AM). 	The student opined
that things would become “more stressful” for Zhang because there
was “another case study and exam in the next week.” 	Id.
On 	October 	18, 	2022, 	Davis 	emailed 	Zhang 	and 	stated 	that 	it
had 	come 	to 	her 	attention 	that 	students 	had 	“not 	received 	their
assignments 	or 	exams 	back 	with 	their 	grades.” 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ.
J. 	Ex. 	37, 	Email 	from 	M. 	Davis 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Oct. 	18, 	2022, 	7:24
PM), ECF No. 45-17. 	Zhang responded that she was “concerned” that
Davis’s message showed “a lack of trust to a faculty member,” and
she 	requested 	a 	meeting 	with 	Davis 	and 	UGA’s 	vice 	president 	for
instruction. 	Id., Email from M. Zhang to M. Davis (Oct. 18, 2022,
9:18 	PM). 	Davis 	and 	Zhang 	went 	back 	and 	forth 	in 	ten 	subsequent
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 21 of 48

22
emails, 	with 	Davis 	asking 	Zhang 	to 	provide 	the 	status 	of 	her
grading and Zhang stating that she was doing her best but providing
no numbers. 	Id., Email chain between M. Davis and M. Zhang (Oct.
19, 2022, 9:16 AM to Oct. 24, 2022, 6:22 PM).
On October 26, 2022, Davis emailed Zhang and stated that based
on 	“student 	complaints 	that” 	Zhang 	was 	“not 	providing 	timely
feedback” 	and 	Zhang’s 	“refusal 	to 	provide 	information 	regarding
the 	status 	of 	[her] 	grading,” 	Davis, 	in 	consultation 	with 	the
provost, was removing Zhang from her teaching responsibilities for
Epidemiology 4070. 	Id., Email from M. Davis to M. Zhang (Oct. 26,
2022, 	11:45 	AM). 	Davis 	further 	stated 	that 	another 	instructor
would 	be 	assigned 	to 	assume 	teaching 	responsibilities 	for 	the
course 	and 	that 	Zhang 	should 	immediately 	turn 	over 	any 	ungraded
assignments and exams to Cordero.
On 	October 	27, 	2022, 	Morehead 	sent 	Zhang 	a 	notice 	of 	formal
discipline and removal proceedings. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 38,
Letter 	from 	J. 	Morehead 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Oct. 	27, 	2022), 	ECF 	No. 	45-
18. 	Morehead noted that Zhang, in her October 10 letter, did not
agree 	to 	Morehead’s 	conditions 	for 	resolving 	the 	disciplinary
proceeding 	and 	instead 	raised 	a 	variety 	of 	complaints 	about 	the
College of Public Health, which Morehead stated were “investigated
. . . by an independent ad hoc committee . . . and are now closed.”
Id. 	at 1. 	Morehead also stated that during the present semester,
Zhang 	showed 	“a 	continuing 	pattern 	of 	neglect 	of 	duty 	and
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 22 of 48

23
disruption 	of 	teaching 	activities.” 	Id. 	at 	2. 	Morehead 	found
that grounds existed for Zhang’s removal based on her “refusal to
teach the assigned course in spring 2022,” her “continuing neglect
of 	duty 	in 	[her] 	fall 	2022 	teaching 	assignment,” 	her 	“refusal 	to
agree 	to 	teach 	an 	additional 	course 	in 	spring 	2023,” 	her
“insubordinate 	refusal 	to 	respond 	to 	reasonable 	requests 	from
[her] Dean,” and her “denial of responsibility for these failures.”
Id. 	Morehead directed the continuation of discipline and removal
proceedings.
IV. 	Zhang’s Hospitalization, Promotion Request, and FMLA Leave
In 	January 	of 	2023, 	Zhang 	was 	diagnosed 	with 	the 	heart
conditions 	ventricular 	tachycardia 	and 	paroxysmal 	tachycardia.
Zhang did not point to evidence that she informed anyone about the
diagnosis when she received it. 	On January 26, 2023, Natalie Cox,
an 	associate 	general 	counsel 	from 	UGA’s 	Office 	of 	Legal 	Affairs,
notified 	Zhang 	that 	her 	discipline 	and 	removal 	hearing 	was
scheduled 	for 	February 	27, 	2023. 	The 	day 	before 	the 	scheduled
hearing, Zhang emailed the members of the discipline committee to
notify 	them 	that 	she 	was 	hospitalized 	and 	could 	not 	attend 	the
hearing. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	43, 	Email 	from 	M. 	Zhang 	(Feb.
26, 2023, 5:56 PM), ECF No. 46-3. 	A committee member responded to
Zhang’s 	email, 	wished 	her 	a 	healthy 	recovery, 	notified 	that 	her
hearing 	would 	be 	rescheduled, 	and 	advised 	Zhang 	to 	follow
“appropriate 	policies 	and 	procedures” 	for 	requesting 	FMLA 	leave.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 23 of 48

24
Id., 	Email 	from 	J. 	Maerz 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Feb. 	27, 	2023, 	12:27 	PM).
Zhang’s counsel responded to the email and notified the committee
that Zhang was undergoing heart surgery and that she would not be
available 	for 	a 	hearing 	until 	she 	returned 	from 	medical 	leave.
Id., Email from J. Oinonen to J. Maerz (Feb. 27, 2023, 12:39 PM).
Cox 	responded 	to 	Zhang’s 	counsel 	and 	provided 	information 	on 	how
to apply for FMLA leave and ADA accommodations.
As 	of 	March 	28, 	2023, 	Zhang 	had 	not 	requested 	FMLA 	leave.
Cordero emailed Zhang to inform her that it was time for her post-
tenure review, that the review needed to be completed by May, and
that “it would be good” for Zhang to submit her “post-tenure report
by the third week of April.” 	Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.
Ex. 	25, 	Email 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Mar. 	28, 	2023, 	11:01
AM), 	ECF 	No. 	50-16. 	Zhang 	responded 	and 	stated 	that 	she 	was 	on
medical leave “through the end of May” and that she wanted to apply
for a promotion to full professor. 	Id., Email from M. Zhang to J.
Cordero 	(Mar. 	31, 	2023, 	10:44 	PM). 	She 	requested 	“a 	late
submission 	in 	the 	summer” 	because 	her 	health 	condition 	was 	“not
promising” for her “to prepare for the application package.” 	Id.
Davis forwarded the email to Associate Provost Weeks and asked for
advice. 	Davis 	noted 	that 	as 	far 	as 	she 	knew, 	Zhang’s 	FMLA
application was “incomplete.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 45, Email
from 	M. 	Davis 	to 	E. 	Weeks 	(Apr. 	1, 	2023, 	6:25 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	46-5.
Weeks 	informed 	Davis, 	copying 	Cordero, 	that 	UGA’s 	post-tenure
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 24 of 48

25
review policy did not “allow a faculty member to elect preliminary
consideration 	for 	promotion 	to 	Professor 	in 	lieu 	of 	post-tenure
review.” 	Id., Email from E. Weeks to M. Davis (Apr. 3, 2023, 10:42
AM). 	She also explained that because UGA’s “promotion and tenure
process is a cohort model,” there was “not an avenue for off-cycle
applications.” 	Id. 	Finally, 	Weeks 	stated 	that 	based 	on 	her
understanding 	from 	the 	office 	of 	legal 	affairs, 	“until 	the 	FMLA
request and supporting documentation” were received, “Zhang should
be considered as an active employee.” 	Id.
After 	he 	received 	Weeks’s 	guidance, 	Cordero 	responded 	to
Zhang’s email and informed her that there was “no room for a late
submission” 	on 	the 	promotion 	application 	because 	“all 	faculty
requesting promotion” must follow the same timeline. 	Pl.’s Resp.
to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 25, Email from J. Cordero to M. Zhang
(Apr. 	5, 	2023, 	4:16 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	50-16. 	Cordero 	stated 	that 	if
Zhang 	wanted 	to 	be 	considered 	for 	promotion, 	she 	must 	submit 	her
letter 	of 	intent 	to 	Cordero 	in 	the 	next 	week 	and 	must 	submit 	her
dossier by April 21. 	Id. 	Cordero stated that there was “no option
for 	off-cycle 	application” 	because 	the 	“promotion 	and 	tenure
process 	is 	a 	cohort 	model.” 	Id. 	Cordero 	further 	explained 	that
a 	faculty 	member 	could 	not 	“elect 	preliminary 	consideration 	for
promotion 	to 	Professor 	in 	lieu 	of 	a 	post-tenure 	review.” 	Id.
Finally, 	Cordero 	noted 	that 	UGA 	had 	not 	received 	Zhang’s 	FMLA
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 25 of 48

26
request and that she would be “considered an active employee” until
UGA received the FMLA request and supporting documentation. 	Id.
Zhang submitted her request for FMLA leave on April 11, 2023.
The request was “entered and approved for 2/28/23 through 5/12/23,
. . . the end date of spring semester.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex.
46, 	Email 	from 	B. 	Barnes 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Apr. 	11, 	2023, 	12:24 	PM),
ECF No. 46-6. 	On April 24, 2023, Zhang sent a letter to Morehead,
copying 	Cordero, 	complaining 	that 	Cordero 	subjected 	her 	to
harassment and interfered with her medical leave by demanding that
she 	submit 	a 	dossier 	package 	by 	April 	21. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J.
Ex. 	48, 	Email 	from 	M. 	Zhang 	to 	J. 	Morehead 	(Apr. 	24, 	2023, 	2:45
PM), 	ECF 	No. 	46-8. 	Davis 	responded 	to 	the 	email, 	stating 	that
because 	Zhang’s 	FMLA 	leave 	was 	approved 	on 	April 	11, 	Cordero’s
“prior 	requests 	for 	information 	regarding 	post-tenure 	review
[were] on hold” and Cordero would provide further instructions for
the 	post-tenure 	review 	process 	after 	Zhang’s 	FMLA 	leave 	ended 	on
May 12, 2023. 	Id., Email from M. Davis to M. Zhang (Apr. 26, 2023,
7:15 PM). 	Davis stated that Zhang was “not expected to work” while
on 	FMLA 	leave. 	Id. 	She 	also 	noted 	that 	UGA 	did 	not 	have 	any
requests 	for 	ADA 	accommodations 	on 	file 	for 	Zhang 	and 	that 	Zhang
could 	contact 	the 	human 	resources 	department 	with 	her 	questions
regarding ADA accommodations. 	Id.
On 	May 	17, 	2023, 	Zhang 	responded 	to 	Davis’s 	April 	26 	email.
Zhang stated (among other things) that she had repeatedly explained
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 26 of 48

27
her “health disability,” that Davis and Cordero “failed to engage
in any interactive process with” her regarding her heart disease,
and that Davis sent “ADA paperwork” to Zhang for “the first time”
in 	April 	2023. 	Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	49, 	Email 	from 	M. 	Zhang
to M. Davis (May 17, 2023, 12:59 AM), ECF No.46-9.1 	Davis responded
on 	May 	31, 	2023, 	stating 	that 	Zhang 	had 	not 	filed 	an 	ADA
accommodation 	request 	and 	that 	if 	Zhang 	wished 	to 	request 	ADA
accommodations, 	she 	should 	do 	so 	through 	UGA’s 	human 	resources
department. 	Id., 	Email 	from 	M. 	Davis 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(May 	31, 	2023,
5:16 	PM). 	Davis 	also 	noted 	that 	Zhang’s 	FMLA 	leave 	ended 	at 	the
end of the spring semester on May 12, 2023, and that because Zhang
was on a nine-month contract she was not obligated to work for UGA
during the summer. 	Id.
Zhang 	submitted 	an 	ADA 	accommodation 	request 	to 	UGA’s 	human
resources department on June 7, 2023. 	She sought extended medical
leave, a temporary release from teaching, a teaching assistant for
large classes, and a transfer to a different department. 	The human
resources 	representative 	instructed 	Zhang 	to 	have 	her 	medical
provider complete an ADA medical certification form. 	In mid-July,
Zhang told the human resources representative that the signed ADA
form 	was 	delayed 	because 	“Doctors’ 	appointment 	in 	the 	summer 	is
1 As discussed above, Cordero had sent Zhang information about ADA and
FMLA resources in January 2022. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 22, Email from
J. Cordero to M. Zhang (Jan. 28, 2022, 3:28 PM), ECF No. 45-2.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 27 of 48

28
not easy.” 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 51, Email from M. Zhang to A.
Creech 	(July 	19, 	2023, 	4:54 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	46-11. 	Zhang 	later
informed the human resources representative that her cardiologist
was 	the 	most 	important 	doctor 	to 	complete 	the 	form 	but 	was
unavailable until August 31. 	Id., Email from M. Zhang to A. Creech
(Aug. 3, 2023, 5:10 PM).
V. 	Zhang’s Termination
Zhang’s 	discipline 	and 	removal 	hearing 	was 	rescheduled 	for
August 31, 2023. 	Zhang, who was represented by counsel, attended
the 	hearing 	and 	testified 	before 	the 	discipline 	committee. 	The
committee 	also 	heard 	testimony 	from 	other 	witnesses, 	including
Davis 	and 	Cordero. 	The 	discipline 	committee 	issued 	a 	report 	on
September 22, 2023. 	Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 53, Discipline Comm.
Report 	(Sep. 	22, 	2023), 	ECF 	No. 	46-13. 	The 	committee 	found 	that
Zhang willfully violated UGA and Board of Regents policies relating
to 	neglect 	of 	duty 	in 	teaching 	and 	disruption 	of 	teaching,
administrative, 	or 	other 	authorized 	activities. 	The 	committee
unanimously 	recommended 	that 	Zhang’s 	tenure 	be 	revoked 	and 	that
she 	be 	dismissed 	from 	her 	position 	as 	an 	associate 	professor 	at
UGA. 	On 	September 	26, 	2023, 	Morehead 	found 	that 	both 	charges
against 	Zhang 	were 	sustained 	and 	that 	her 	employment 	with 	the
university, including tenure, should be terminated as of that date.
Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	55, 	Letter 	from 	J. 	Morehead 	to 	M. 	Zhang
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 28 of 48

29
(Sep. 26, 2023), ECF No. 47-2. 	Zhang appealed her termination to
the Board of Regents, which upheld the termination.
DISCUSSION
Despite the voluminous record and the parties’ many disputes
about 	what 	it 	says, 	the 	issues 	in 	this 	case 	are 	straightforward:
did Zhang present enough evidence to support claims of (1) race or
national 	origin 	discrimination, 	(2) 	retaliation, 	and 	(3)
disability discrimination? 	The Court addresses each claim in turn.
I. 	Zhang’s Race and National Origin Discrimination Claims
To 	establish 	a 	Title 	VII 	race 	or 	national 	origin
discrimination claim, Zhang 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, Zhang 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). 	An 	adverse 	employment 	action 	is 	an 	action
that 	constitutes 	“harm 	respecting 	an 	identifiable 	term 	or
condition of employment.” 	Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S.
346, 355 (2024). 	To survive summary judgment, Zhang must present
enough evidence to show causation—evidence that “creates a triable
issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent.” 	Tynes v.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 29 of 48

30
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, 	Zhang 	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
F.3d 	1213, 	1224 	(11th 	Cir. 	2019) 	(en 	banc). 	A 	plaintiff 	and 	her
comparators must be “similarly situated in all material respects,”
which 	means 	they 	were 	subject 	to 	the 	same 	employment 	policy 	and
share a similar employment and disciplinary history. 	Id. at 1227-
28. 	Here, 	Zhang 	appears 	to 	base 	her 	discrimination 	claims 	on
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 30 of 48

31
disparate 	treatment 	related 	to 	the 	assignment 	of 	a 	teaching
assistant and the deadline for a promotion application.2
First, 	Zhang 	argues 	that 	Defendants 	treated 	her 	differently
than 	Nicholas 	Mallis, 	a 	white 	instructor 	who 	received 	a 	teaching
assistant 	during 	fall 	2022 	while 	she 	did 	not. 	Zhang 	did 	not
clearly 	explain 	how 	the 	denial 	of 	a 	teaching 	assistant 	for 	fall
2022 	constituted 	“harm 	respecting 	an 	identifiable 	term 	or
condition of employment.” 	Muldrow, 601 U.S. at 355. 	The Court is
not 	convinced 	that 	the 	denial 	of 	a 	teaching 	assistant 	is 	an
actionable adverse employment action under the circumstances here,
where 	there 	were 	limited 	teaching 	assistants 	for 	the 	Department
and 	fewer 	than 	half 	of 	the 	professors 	were 	assigned 	a 	teaching
assistant for the semester. 	Zhang’s discrimination claim based on
the denial of a teaching assistant thus fails.
Even if the denial of a teaching assistant was an actionable
adverse employment action, Zhang did not demonstrate that she and
Mallis 	were 	similarly 	situated 	in 	all 	material 	respects. 	Zhang
argues that she was due to receive a teaching assistant over Mallis
because 	she 	had 	more 	students 	in 	her 	one 	section 	of 	Epidemiology
4070 than Mallis had in his two sections of the course. 	But Zhang
2 Zhang listed several adverse employment actions in the discrimination
section 	of 	her 	brief, 	including 	the 	disciplinary 	proceedings 	that
culminated in her termination. 	Zhang, though, did not clearly point to
evidence that would permit a factfinder to conclude that these decisions
were 	motivated 	by 	her 	race 	or 	national 	origin. 	The 	only 	comparator
evidence she cites relates to the denial of a teaching assistant and the
denial of an extension for a promotion application.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 31 of 48

32
did not rebut the evidence that Mallis had eighty-five students in
four classes, including two sections of Epidemiology 4070 and two
sections of Biostatistics 2010. 	Even under Zhang’s interpretation
of the 2020 teaching assistant policy she relies on, Zhang did not
present 	sufficient 	evidence 	from 	which 	a 	reasonable 	jury 	could
conclude that she should have received priority over Mallis. 	That
policy stated that the priority was to assign teaching assistants
to 	larger 	enrollment 	courses, 	including 	Biostatistics 	2010 	and
Epidemiology 4070. 	If, as Zhang asserts, Mallis only had twenty-
four 	students 	in 	his 	two 	sections 	of 	Epidemiology 	4070, 	then 	he
had 	sixty-one 	students 	in 	his 	two 	sections 	of 	the 	Biostatistics
2010 course—which means that he had more students in Biostatistics
2010 	than 	Zhang 	had 	in 	Epidemiology 	4070, 	plus 	his 	Epidemiology
4070 students. 	For all these reasons, the Court finds that Zhang
did 	not 	show 	that 	she 	and 	Mallis 	were 	similarly 	situated 	in 	all
material 	respects. 	Accordingly, 	Zhang 	did 	not 	establish 	a 	prima
facie case of race or national origin discrimination based on the
denial of a teaching assistant.
Next, 	Zhang 	argues 	that 	Defendants 	treated 	her 	differently
than 	Andrea 	Swartzendruber, 	a 	white 	professor 	who 	Zhang 	contends
did not teach the same number of classes as other professors before
she was considered for tenure. 	Zhang did not clearly explain how
she 	and 	Swartzendruber 	were 	similarly 	situated 	in 	all 	material
respects. 	As discussed above, Zhang did not comply with the 2021
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 32 of 48

33
teaching policy that required her to teach at least one course per
academic year. 	In contrast, it is undisputed that Swartzendruber
taught 	at 	least 	one 	course 	per 	semester 	before 	she 	was 	granted
tenure, 	plus 	Defendants 	presented 	evidence, 	which 	Zhang 	did 	not
rebut, 	that 	Swartzendruber 	completed 	buyouts 	for 	one 	course 	per
semester. 	Thus, 	Zhang 	did 	not 	demonstrate 	that 	Swartzendruber
failed 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	teaching 	policy, 	so 	Swartzendruber 	is
not a valid comparator. 	For these reasons, Zhang did not establish
a prima facie case of discrimination based on the teaching policy
issue.
Zhang also argues that the Department gave Swartzendruber an
extension of time to file her tenure application but did not give
Zhang an extension of time to file her application for a promotion
to 	full 	professor. 	It 	is 	true 	that 	the 	Department 	allowed
Swartzendruber 	to 	submit 	her 	tenure 	application 	in 	July 	2020
instead of April 2020, following a misunderstanding by Department
leadership 	about 	when 	she 	was 	eligible 	to 	begin 	the 	process. 	It
is 	also 	true 	that 	when 	Zhang 	told 	the 	Department 	that 	she 	wanted
to 	apply 	for 	a 	promotion 	to 	full 	professor 	instead 	of 	undergoing
the 	post-tenure 	review 	process 	and 	submit 	her 	promotion
application sometime in the summer of 2023, Cordero responded that
(a) Zhang could not bypass the post-tenure review process and (b)
if she wanted to be considered for a promotion in 2023, she needed
to 	submit 	her 	letter 	of 	intent 	by 	mid-April 	and 	her 	dossier 	by
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 33 of 48

34
April 21. 	After Zhang applied for and received FMLA leave, Zhang
was informed that the post-tenure review had been put on hold until
she returned from medical leave and that she was not obligated to
work for UGA over the summer. 	Zhang argues that it was an adverse
employment 	action 	for 	Defendants 	to 	decline 	her 	request 	for 	an
extension to submit her promotion application.
Under the unique circumstances presented here, it is not clear
to the Court how the denial of an extension to apply for a promotion
to 	full 	professor 	was 	a 	material 	harm 	respecting 	an 	identifiable
term 	or 	condition 	of 	Zhang’s 	employment. 	Well 	before 	Zhang
mentioned 	that 	she 	wanted 	to 	apply 	for 	a 	promotion 	to 	full
professor, she was far along the path to termination. 	By October
2022, Zhang’s dean, a committee appointed by the provost, and UGA’s
president 	all 	concluded 	that 	Zhang’s 	actions 	constituted 	neglect
of duty and disruption of teaching and administrative duties that
warranted 	dismissal. 	Zhang 	did 	not 	point 	to 	any 	evidence
suggesting 	that 	she 	had 	any 	shot 	of 	being 	recommended 	for 	a
promotion 	to 	full 	professor 	before 	her 	dismissal 	hearing,
regardless 	of 	when 	she 	turned 	in 	her 	application. 	Once 	Zhang
returned 	from 	her 	medical 	leave 	and 	the 	committee 	held 	her
disciplinary 	hearing, 	she 	was 	promptly 	terminated. 	For 	these
reasons, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Zhang 	did 	not 	present 	sufficient
evidence 	from 	which 	a 	reasonable 	jury 	could 	conclude 	that 	she
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 34 of 48

35
suffered 	a 	discriminatory 	adverse 	employment 	action 	when 	she 	was
denied an extension to apply for a promotion.
Even if Zhang had established that the denial of an extension
for 	her 	promotion 	application 	deadline 	was 	an 	adverse 	employment
action, she did not show that she and Swartzendruber were similarly
situated 	in 	all 	material 	respects. 	Swartzendruber 	was 	applying
for tenure and a promotion to associate professor in 2020. 	Due to
a 	misunderstanding 	of 	UGA’s 	promotion 	policy, 	the 	Department 	did
not learn until after the application deadline that Swartzendruber
and 	another 	faculty 	member 	were 	eligible 	to 	submit 	applications
for 	preliminary 	consideration. 	To 	correct 	its 	mistake, 	the
Department 	notified 	Swartzendruber 	and 	the 	other 	faculty 	member
that 	they 	could 	go 	ahead 	and 	submit 	their 	tenure 	applications 	so
the preliminary consideration could be completed in time for full
consideration 	of 	the 	applications 	with 	the 	rest 	of 	the 	cohort
during 	the 	fall. 	Zhang, 	in 	contrast, 	wanted 	to 	apply 	for 	a
promotion to full professor but had not yet completed the required
five-year 	post-tenure 	review 	process 	because 	it 	was 	put 	on 	hold
due 	to 	her 	FMLA 	leave. 	Before 	the 	review 	process 	could 	be
completed, 	Zhang 	was 	terminated. 	For 	these 	reasons,
Swartzendruber 	and 	Zhang 	were 	not 	similarly 	situated, 	and 	Zhang
did 	not 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of 	discrimination 	based 	on
the 	denial 	of 	her 	request 	for 	an 	extension 	of 	the 	promotion
application deadline.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 35 of 48

36
In 	addition 	to 	her 	comparator 	arguments, 	Zhang 	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
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 	Zhang 	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 	Zhang 	because 	of
her race or national origin. 	Zhang has the “burden to produce and
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 36 of 48

37
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). 	Zhang did not identify evidence
to support her “convincing mosaic” argument, and the evidence she
cited would not allow a jury to infer that Defendants discriminated
against 	her 	because 	of 	her 	race 	or 	national 	origin. 	Thus, 	the
convincing 	mosaic 	standard 	does 	not 	save 	Zhang’s 	discrimination
claims, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
II. 	Zhang’s Retaliation Claims
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, Zhang 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, 	Zhang 	contends 	that 	she 	engaged 	in 	activity 	protected
under 	Title 	VII 	and 	§ 1981 	when 	she 	and 	two 	colleagues 	wrote 	a
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 37 of 48

38
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 	(1) 	requiring 	her 	to 	teach 	a
course 	in 	the 	spring 	of 	2022 	and 	(2) 	initiation 	of 	disciplinary
proceedings. 	In 	addition 	to 	showing 	that 	these 	actions 	are
materially 	adverse 	actions 	that 	would 	support 	retaliation 	claims
under Title VII and § 1981, Zhang must also establish that (1) she
engaged 	in 	protected 	activity 	under 	Title 	VII 	and 	§ 1981 	and 	(2)
the 	protected 	activity 	was 	a 	but-for 	cause 	of 	any 	materially
adverse actions.3
To engage in protected activity, an employee must communicate
her 	reasonable 	belief 	that 	the 	employer’s 	conduct 	constitutes
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)
3 	Zhang 	also 	contends 	that 	a 	“writeup” 	she 	received 	was 	a 	materially
adverse retaliatory action. 	She did not specify which writeup she meant,
but 	if 	she 	meant 	the 	September 	23, 	2020, 	letter 	of 	counseling 	from
Cordero, she cannot show a causal connection because that letter predated
all the letters she contends were protected activity.
Zhang further argues that the denial of a teaching assistant for
fall 2022 was retaliatory. 	For the reasons explained above, the Court
is not convinced that the denial of a teaching assistant is a materially
adverse action under the circumstances of this 	case or that Zhang 	was
treated differently than a comparator who was similarly situated in all
material respects but had not engaged in protected activity.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 38 of 48

39
(“Unfair 	treatment, 	absent 	discrimination 	based 	on 	race, 	sex, 	or
national origin, is not an unlawful employment practice under Title
VII.”).
Zhang 	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
national origin discrimination. 	Accordingly, the two 2020 letters
are not protected activity under Title VII or § 1981.
The 	third 	letter, 	to 	which 	Zhang 	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. 	8, 	Letter 	from 	M. 	Zhang 	et 	al. 	to 	J. 	Hu
(Sep. 9, 2021), ECF No. 44-5. 	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
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 39 of 48

40
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
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, Zhang must show a causal connection between
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 40 of 48

41
the protected activity and a materially 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, Zhang must
prove 	that 	if 	she 	had 	not 	complained 	of 	race 	or 	national 	origin
discrimination, she would not have suffered an adverse action.
A. 	The Spring 2022 Teaching Requirement
Zhang 	asserts 	that 	she 	suffered 	a 	materially 	adverse 	action
when Cordero and Davis required her to teach Epidemiology 4070 in
the 	spring 	of 	2022. 	Though 	Zhang 	asserts 	that 	Cordero 	gave 	her
permission 	to 	buy 	out 	or 	use 	mentoring 	credit 	to 	cover 	all 	four
courses 	for 	the 	2021-2022 	academic 	year, 	she 	did 	not 	point 	to
evidence 	to 	support 	this 	assertion. 	Rather, 	the 	evidence 	she
presented 	shows 	that 	Zhang 	asked 	Cordero 	in 	January 	2021 	if 	she
could 	buy 	out 	courses 	in 	advance 	by 	“paying 	in 	Spring 	2021” 	to
“get course release in Fall 2021 or Spring 2022.” 	Pl.’s Resp. to
Defs.’ 	Mot. 	Summ. 	J. 	Ex. 	13, 	Email 	from 	M. 	Zhang 	to 	J. 	Cordero 	&
A. 	Handel 	(Jan. 	20, 	2021, 	2:47 	PM), 	ECF 	No. 	50-6. 	The 	evidence
also 	establishes 	that 	Cordero 	informed 	Zhang 	that 	she 	could
complete 	a 	buyout 	in 	spring 	2021 	“and 	apply 	it 	for 	Fall 	2021 	or
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 41 of 48

42
Spring 	2022.” 	Id., 	Email 	from 	J. 	Cordero 	to 	M. 	Zhang 	(Jan. 	20,
2021, 5:38 PM). 	Even if Zhang subjectively believed that Cordero’s
email 	meant 	that 	she 	could 	buy 	out 	all 	her 	courses 	for 	the 	2021-
2022 academic year (despite the use of the disjunctive “or” in her
request and in Cordero’s response), she did not point to evidence
that 	she 	followed 	the 	rest 	of 	the 	required 	buyout 	procedures,
including 	submission 	of 	a 	formal 	buyout 	request 	that 	was 	fully
approved by the Department and the College. 	She also did not point
to evidence that any formal buyout approval authorized her to buy
out both courses in spring 2022. 	Accordingly, the present record
does not support Zhang’s argument that she secured buyouts to cover
her 	teaching 	requirements 	during 	spring 	2022 	or 	that 	any 	buyouts
were 	revoked. 	Rather, 	a 	more 	accurate 	description 	of 	the
challenged 	employment 	action 	based 	on 	the 	present 	record 	is 	that
Cordero 	and 	Davis 	refused 	to 	grant 	Zhang 	an 	exception 	to 	the
“Everyone 	must 	teach 	one 	three-hour 	course 	per 	academic 	year”
requirement. 	The Court is not convinced that this is a materially
adverse action.
Even if the denial of an exception to the teaching requirement
was 	a 	materially 	adverse 	action, 	Zhang 	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 Zhang did not point to any
evidence 	indicating 	that 	they 	received 	it. 	Rather, 	she 	and 	Song
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 42 of 48

43
and 	Huang 	asked 	that 	their 	reports 	be 	kept 	confidential. 	Thus,
Zhang did not establish that the two decisionmakers were aware she
engaged 	in 	protected 	activity, 	and 	the 	denial 	of 	an 	exception 	to
the 	teaching 	requirement 	could 	not 	have 	been 	in 	retaliation 	for
the 	September 	2021 	letter. 	Likewise, 	Zhang 	did 	not 	produce
sufficient 	evidence 	from 	which 	a 	jury 	could 	conclude 	that 	the
decisionmakers were aware she engaged in protected activity before
they 	initiated 	disciplinary 	proceedings 	based 	on 	Zhang’s 	refusal
to teach Epidemiology 4070 in spring 2022. 	For these reasons, the
Court 	finds 	that 	Zhang 	failed 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of
retaliation based on the spring 2022 teaching requirement.
B. 	The Disciplinary Proceedings
Zhang 	also 	contends 	that 	she 	suffered 	materially 	adverse
actions 	when 	she 	was 	subjected 	to 	disciplinary 	proceedings 	and
later 	terminated. 	There 	is 	no 	dispute 	that 	these 	actions 	are
materially adverse actions that would support a retaliation claim
if Zhang could establish causation. 	As discussed above, Zhang did
not clearly point to evidence that Cordero and Davis, who decided
to 	initiate 	disciplinary 	proceedings, 	knew 	about 	the 	September
2021 	letter. 	Likewise, 	Zhang 	did 	not 	present 	evidence 	that
Morehead, 	who 	directed 	the 	continuation 	of 	disciplinary
proceedings 	and 	later 	terminated 	Zhang, 	knew 	about 	the 	September
2021 	letter. 	Without 	evidence 	that 	the 	relevant 	decisionmakers
were aware of protected conduct, Zhang cannot establish causation.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 43 of 48

44
Even if the Court were to accept Zhang’s apparent assumption
that Cordero, Davis, and Morehead somehow knew about the September
2021 letter and interpreted it to mean that she was complaining of
race 	and 	national 	origin 	discrimination, 	her 	retaliation 	claim
still 	fails. 	First, 	Davis 	did 	not 	initiate 	disciplinary
proceedings until March 2022, approximately six months after Zhang
sent 	the 	September 	2021 	letter. 	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).
Second, even if Zhang had shown a causal connection sufficient
to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Zhang did not point
to evidence to rebut Defendants’ legitimate nonretaliatory reason
for 	the 	disciplinary 	proceedings: 	Zhang 	refused 	to 	teach 	a 	class
that 	Cordero, 	Davis, 	and 	Morehead 	determined 	she 	was 	required 	to
teach. 	Zhang argues that teaching the course was not an essential
requirement 	of 	her 	job, 	citing 	her 	belief 	that 	she 	received
approval to buy out the course. 	It is true that months after the
disciplinary 	process 	began, 	an 	ad 	hoc 	committee 	determined 	that
Zhang, Davis, and Cordero shared responsibility for a breakdown in
communication which resulted in Zhang believing that she had been
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 44 of 48

45
approved 	for 	a 	two-course 	buyout 	in 	spring 	2022. 	But 	the 	key
inquiry is what Zhang’s employer believed in good faith. 	Gogel v.
Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121, 1148 (11th Cir. 2020)
(“[W]hen 	assessing 	whether 	an 	employer 	has 	properly 	imposed 	an
adverse 	action 	on 	an 	employee 	based 	on 	that 	employee’s 	conduct,
the 	question 	is 	not 	whether 	the 	employee 	actually 	engaged 	in 	the
conduct, 	but 	instead 	whether 	the 	employer 	in 	good 	faith 	believed
that the employee had done so.”). 	It is undisputed that Cordero,
Davis, 	and 	Morehead 	believed 	that 	Zhang 	had 	not 	been 	approved 	to
buy 	out 	two 	courses; 	they 	repeatedly 	told 	Zhang 	that 	she 	was
required 	to 	teach 	a 	specific 	course 	in 	spring 	2022, 	and 	they
concluded 	when 	she 	stopped 	teaching 	the 	course 	that 	she 	was
violating UGA’s teaching policies and neglecting her duties. 	For
all these reasons, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Zhang’s 	retaliation 	claims 	based 	on 	the 	disciplinary 	proceedings
and her termination.
III. Zhang’s Disability Discrimination Claims
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits entities that
receive 	federal 	funds 	from 	discriminating 	against 	an 	“otherwise
qualified 	individual 	with 	a 	disability.” 	29 	U.S.C. 	§ 794(a);
accord Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280, 1288 (11th Cir.
2017). 	Disability 	discrimination 	under 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act
includes 	failing 	“to 	provide 	a 	reasonable 	accommodation 	for 	the
disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 45 of 48

46
employer.” 	Pell City, 866 F.3d at 1289. 	Defendants do not dispute
that Zhang’s heart condition is a disability within the meaning of
the Rehabilitation Act. 	They do argue that Zhang did not request
a reasonable accommodation.
To 	show 	that 	“a 	requested 	accommodation 	is 	reasonable 	under
the Rehabilitation Act, an employee must put her employer on notice
of the disability for which she seeks an accommodation and provide
enough 	information 	to 	allow 	her 	employer 	to 	understand 	how 	the
accommodation she requests would assist her.” 	Owens v. Governor’s
Off. of Student Achievement, 52 F.4th 1327, 1330 (11th Cir. 2022).
“The 	Rehabilitation 	Act 	does 	not 	require 	employers 	to 	speculate
about 	their 	employees’ 	accommodation 	needs.” 	Id. 	at 	1334.
“Instead, 	. . . 	to 	trigger 	an 	employer’s 	duty 	to 	provide 	a
reasonable 	accommodation, 	the 	employee 	must 	(1) 	make 	a 	specific
demand 	for 	an 	accommodation 	and 	(2) 	demonstrate 	that 	such
accommodation 	is 	reasonable.” 	Id. 	“Only 	after 	the 	employee
provides this information must the employer ‘initiate an informal,
interactive 	process’ 	with 	the 	employee 	to 	discuss 	the 	employee’s
specific limitations, explore potential accommodations, and select
the 	most 	appropriate 	accommodation 	for 	both 	the 	employer 	and 	the
employee.” 	Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).
Here, 	Zhang 	claims 	that 	she 	requested 	a 	reasonable
accommodation in January 2022 when she informed Davis and Cordero
that she had been experiencing symptoms including rapid heartbeat,
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 46 of 48

47
shortness of breath, and chest pain and then told them that it was
time 	to 	find 	a 	new 	instructor 	for 	Epidemiology 	4070. 	Zhang,
though, 	did 	not 	present 	evidence 	that 	she 	put 	any 	Defendant 	on
notice 	of 	the 	disability 	for 	which 	she 	sought 	an 	accommodation.
Instead, Zhang pointed to evidence showing that she gave Davis and
Cordero 	a 	list 	of 	symptoms 	that 	could 	indicate 	several 	medical
conditions. 	She did not point to evidence that she explained how
the 	symptoms 	substantially 	limited 	one 	or 	more 	of 	her 	major 	life
activities, and she did not explain how the accommodation she says
should have been provided (not teaching the class) would help her
perform 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	her 	job. 	Even 	after 	Cordero
sent 	Zhang 	resources 	for 	employees 	with 	disabilities, 	Zhang 	did
not provide additional information about her disability. 	The Court
is 	not 	convinced 	that 	Zhang’s 	January 	2022 	list 	of 	symptoms 	and
vague statements about health concerns was enough to trigger UGA’s
duty 	to 	provide 	an 	accommodation 	under 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act.
Her disability discrimination claim thus fails.
In 	addition, 	Zhang 	did 	not 	show 	that 	her 	requested
accommodation—being 	excused 	from 	the 	teaching 	requirement—was
reasonable or would enable her to perform the essential functions
of 	her 	job 	without 	imposing 	an 	undue 	hardship 	on 	her 	employer.4
4 Zhang argues that teaching a course was not an essential function of
her job because 	Cordero approved Zhang’s buyouts for 	spring 2022. 	As
discussed above, though, the evidence Zhang relies on does not establish
that Cordero approved two course buyouts for spring 2022.
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 47 of 48

48
An employer is not required to eliminate essential functions of a
disabled 	employee’s 	job 	or 	assign 	essential 	functions 	of 	the
disabled person’s job to another employee. 	See, e.g., Bagwell v.
Morgan 	Cnty. 	Comm’n, 	676 	F. 	App’x 	863, 	866 	(11th 	Cir. 	2017) 	(per
curiam). 	Based on the present record, teaching at least one course
per 	year 	was 	an 	essential 	function 	of 	Zhang’s 	job 	as 	a 	professor
in 	the 	College 	of 	Public 	Health, 	and 	UGA 	had 	to 	hire 	another
professor 	to 	teach 	the 	Epidemiology 	4070 	class 	in 	spring 	2022.
For 	this 	additional 	reason, 	Zhang’s 	disability 	discrimination
claim fails.
CONCLUSION
As 	discussed 	above, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Zhang 	did 	not
establish a genuine fact dispute on any of her claims. 	The record
instead 	demands 	judgment 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law 	for 	the 	Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ summary judgment motion
(ECF No. 43).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of December, 2025.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 3:23-cv-00149-CDL Document 54 Filed 12/23/25 Page 48 of 48