What Employers Can Learn from Imungi v. Virginia Commonwealth University

Hwy Bosses!

The case of Imungi v. Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) is a great example of how documentation, consistency, and timing can make or break an employer’s defense.

---

Case Summary: What Happened

The Players

• Plaintiff: Dr. Muthoni Imungi, a professor at VCU’s School of Social Work

• Defendant: Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU)

• The Position: In addition to her teaching duties, Dr. Imungi held a one-year administrative role as Director of Field Education, which came with a $10,000 stipend.

In June 2020, VCU decided not to renew her administrative appointment. Dr. Imungi claimed that the decision was retaliation for her earlier complaints of race discrimination under Title VII. She also alleged race and national origin discrimination, but her appeal focused on retaliation.

---

The Court’s Decision

The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of VCU, meaning the university won. The court ruled that Dr. Imungi failed to present enough evidence to show that VCU’s decision was caused by retaliation or that the university’s reasons were a pretext.

The Court’s Key Findings

1. Performance concerns existed before the complaint.
   VCU had documented issues with Dr. Imungi’s leadership style, collaboration, and communication long before she raised any concerns about discrimination.

2. VCU had already been discussing nonrenewal.
   The Dean had been evaluating possible role changes and had even asked Dr. Imungi to step down prior to her protected activity.

3. Timing alone was not enough.
   Although Dr. Imungi complained in early 2020 and her nonrenewal occurred in June, the court found that discussions about nonrenewal had started earlier.

4. VCU’s reasons were consistent and supported.
   The university provided clear, non-retaliatory reasons for its decision, such as misalignment with the Dean’s vision and repeated feedback about performance issues.

5. The dissent saw things differently.
   Judge Wynn dissented, noting that some internal emails about “risk” and “singling her out” could have supported an inference of retaliation. However, the majority found that these hints were not strong enough to send the case to trial.

---

What Employers Should Take Away

1. Document Early and Often

VCU’s best defense was its detailed documentation that began before any complaint. This made it hard for Dr. Imungi to argue that retaliation was the real reason for nonrenewal.

Takeaway: Keep clear and objective records of performance discussions, leadership concerns, and coaching efforts. If issues arise before a complaint, document them right away.

---

2. Timing Alone Does Not Equal Retaliation

Courts often look at the timing between a complaint and an adverse action, but timing by itself rarely proves retaliation. If the decision process started before the complaint, that can defeat the inference of a retaliatory motive.

Takeaway: If you have been planning organizational changes or performance reviews, document those timelines so you can show that the decision was already in motion.

---

3. Keep Explanations Credible and Consistent

The court emphasized that VCU’s explanations never changed. The university stayed consistent in citing performance and vision alignment concerns, supported by emails and reviews.

Takeaway: Avoid shifting your story after an employee complains. Once you give a reason for a decision, stick with it and ensure your records back it up. Inconsistency can look like pretext.

---

4. Be Mindful of Internal Communications

The dissent pointed to internal emails suggesting administrators discussed the legal risks of certain actions and whether they might be “singling her out.” Those kinds of messages can create a perception of retaliation.

Takeaway: Always assume internal emails and notes could one day be reviewed by a court. Keep communications professional and factual. Avoid unnecessary commentary about legal risk or frustration with the employee.

---

5. The Decisionmaker’s Belief Matters

Courts focus on whether the decisionmaker genuinely believed the stated reasons for an action, even if those reasons turn out to be mistaken.

Takeaway: Train leaders to document the reasons for their decisions clearly and to communicate those reasons in good faith. Honest belief and consistent documentation are powerful defenses.

---

6. Preexisting Plans Help Establish Context

VCU had begun discussing changes to the Field Education program and its leadership structure before the protected activity occurred. That preexisting plan helped prove that the nonrenewal was not retaliatory.

Takeaway: When reorganizing roles or departments, record the planning timeline and rationale. Transparent communication and early documentation protect against retaliation claims.

---

7. Avoid “Least-Risk” Decision Strategies

The dissent noted that some internal communications suggested VCU may have chosen the “least risky” way to remove Dr. Imungi by nonrenewing the supplemental appointment instead of terminating her outright.

Takeaway: Do not let your decision process look like it was driven by legal maneuvering rather than legitimate business reasons. Make sure your documentation reflects performance, mission alignment, or other objective factors.

---

How Employers Can Apply These Lessons

Before a Complaint:

• Define clear performance standards for all administrative or supplemental roles.

• Provide regular feedback and keep a written record of discussions.

• Address issues as they arise instead of waiting until contract renewal time.

When a Complaint Is Made:

• Treat it seriously and refer it to HR or your EEO office.

• Ensure the decision process is insulated from anyone involved in the complaint.

• Delay or review pending employment actions if necessary to ensure fairness.

When Making an Adverse Decision:

• Support it with detailed documentation and examples.

• Communicate the rationale consistently and professionally.

• Review all internal communications for tone and clarity before finalizing the decision.

---

Final Thoughts

The Imungi case is a reminder that retaliation claims often hinge on timing, documentation, and credibility. Employers who keep good records, act consistently, and communicate transparently are far more likely to prevail in court.

Or to put it another way: when in doubt, write it down, keep it clean, and treat people like humans. It is cheaper than litigation and a whole lot better for morale.

---