Fosu v. University of Rhode Island

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Louis Kwame Fosu
v. Case No. 21-cv-279-SJM-AKJ
University of Rhode Island
Board of Trustees, et al.
O R D E R
Pro se plaintiff Louis Kwame Fosu brings claims against his
former employer, the University of Rhode Island (“URI”);
President of URI’s Board of Trustees, David M. Dooley; URI
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Donald DeHayes,
and Dean of the URI College of Arts and Sciences, Jeannette
Riley. He alleges civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and claims under Rhode Island law. Doc. no.
36. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. Doc.
no. 118. Fosu has not objected or otherwise responded, despite
having been granted additional time to file a response. For the
reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment is granted
as to Fosu’s federal claims and the court declines supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when, based upon the record
presented for purposes of the motion, “there is no genuine
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 1 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A
dispute is genuine “if the evidence would enable a reasonable
factfinder to decide the issue in favor of either party.”
Alicea v. Cincinnati Inc., 166 F.4th 245, 253 (1st Cir. 2026)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Facts are material if they
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”
Arocho-Rodriguez v. Concepcion, 177 F.4th 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2026)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In the District of Rhode Island, the party moving for
summary judgment must file a separate statement of undisputed
material facts with numbered paragraphs and citing evidence in
support. LR Cv 56(a)(1) & (2). “For purposes of a motion for
summary judgment, any fact alleged in the movant’s Statement of
Undisputed Facts shall be deemed admitted unless expressly
denied or otherwise controverted by a party objecting to the
motion.” LR Cv 56(a)(3). If the party opposing summary
judgment disputes the moving party’s factual statement, the
opposing party must file a statement of disputed facts, with
correspondingly numbered paragraphs, that identifies the
evidence that establishes the factual dispute. Id.; see also
Karmue v. Moore, 654 F. Supp. 3d 118, 125 (D.R.I. 2023).
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Because Fosu has not responded to defendants’ motion, the
court will accept as uncontested defendants’ recitation of the
material facts.1
Background
I. Procedural Background
Fosu was represented by counsel when the original complaint
was filed and through filing of the second amended complaint.
Counsel withdrew from representation in late 2023. Fosu has
proceeded pro se since that time.
Fosu filed a series of motions that the court denied,
stating that “[t]he motions not only request no proper
court relief, but they are also scurrilous and inaccurately
describe defense counsel’s conduct in this litigation, which
this Court has seen to be nothing but professional, ethical, and
proper.” Doc. no. 58, at 1. Fosu then moved to disqualify the
judge presiding in this case, followed by a series of motions
1 On the day his objection to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment was due, Fosu filed a motion to unseal documents that
defendants filed in support of their motion for summary
judgment. Doc. no. 134. In that motion, Fosu asserted that he
will file an objection to the motion for summary judgment and
argues that he disputes the statement of facts defendants
provided in support of their motion. Id. at 3. That filing is
not an objection to defendants’ motion and does not establish a
genuine dispute of material facts for purposes of summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); LR Cv 56(a)(3).
Therefore, Fosu’s motion to unseal is not considered for
purposes of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
seeking the same relief. After eighteen months, the judge
recused from the case, stating: “Louis Kwame Fosu has again
moved to recuse the judge who has presided over this case for
over three years. In the present motion, Mr. Fosu continues to
make statements about the judge that are false and incendiary.
After years of false accusations from Mr. Fosu, the Court has
finally reached its limit in its ability to be fair and
impartial to Mr. Fosu in this case.” Doc. no. 72.
After all judges in the District of Rhode Island recused,
the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge, sitting by
designation. Before reassignment, Fosu moved to withdraw from
the case. Doc. no. 67. After reassignment, the court
interpreted Fosu’s motion to seek voluntary dismissal of his
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), granted
the motion, and closed the case.2 Doc. no. 84. Fosu appealed
that decision and also moved to alter judgment in which he
explained that he did not intend to dismiss his claims and,
along with other relief, sought to reinstate his claims. Doc.
2 Fosu brought a separate suit in the District of Rhode
Island against the lawyers and law firm that represented URI in
this case. Fosu v. Richard, 25-cv-691-SM (filed Dec. 31, 2025).
After the judges in the District of Rhode Island recused, that
case was also reassigned to the undersigned judge. Defendants’
motion to dismiss was granted, and judgment entered on June 25,
2026. Fosu appealed that decision. He also filed a second suit
against URI officials, Fosu v. Larsen, 26-cv-532-MSM-PAS (filed
Aug. 5, 2026), and has moved for recusal of the sitting judge in
that case.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
no. 87. The court granted Fosu’s motion to the extent that the
case was reinstated. Doc. no. 97.
The court then set a schedule for summary judgment motion.
Doc. no. 100. Fosu moved for the undersigned judge to recuse
and also moved for appointed counsel. Doc. nos. 102 & 103.
Both motions were denied. Doc. nos. 106 & 107. Fosu then filed
motions to “correct the record” because he disagreed with a
statement the court quoted from Fosu’s previous counsel’s motion
to withdraw from representing him and moved for reconsideration
of the court’s orders. Doc. nos. 109, 111, 113, & 114. Those
motions were denied.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Fosu’s response
was due on August 14, 2026. Doc. no. 118. Fosu then moved for
an explanation of the recusal orders issued in this case, which
was denied. Two days before the deadline for his response to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Fosu moved for an
extension of 180 days. Doc. no. 124. The court noted that Fosu
had not met his burden to support his request but nevertheless
extended the deadline for 30 days, until September 14, 2026.
Fosu did not file an objection to the motion for summary
judgment within the time allowed. On the day his objection to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment was due, Fosu filed a
motion to unseal documents that defendants filed in support of
their motion for summary judgment. Doc. no. 134. In that
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
motion, Fosu asserted that he will file an objection to the
motion for summary judgment and argues that he disputes the
statement of facts defendants provided in support of their
motion. Id. at 3. That filing is not an objection to
defendants’ motion and does not establish a genuine dispute of
material facts for purposes of summary judgment. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); LR Cv 56(a)(3).
Then, Fosu filed two motions to correct or clarify previous
orders issued by the court. Doc. nos. 136 & 137. In the first
motion, Fosu objects to the court’s “characterization” of long-
past motion to withdraw from this case. Doc. no. 136, at 1. In
the second, he objects to the court’s reference to his
“voluminous irrelevant exhibits” filed in support of his motion
for an extension of time. Doc. no. 137, at 1. Neither motion
is an objection to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
None of the recently-filed motions is considered for purposes of
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
As such, Fosu filed no response to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Under Local Rule Cv 56(a)(3), Fosu admits the
facts in defendants’ statement of undisputed facts (document no.
119).
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 6 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
II. Factual Background
A. Fosu’s Employment at URI
In 2018, URI recruited and hired Dr. Gifty Ako-Adounvo, as
Vice Provost for Global Initiatives and Senior International
Officer. Doc. no. 119, ¶¶ 1, 38-43. Dr. Ako-Adounvo asked for
URI’s help to locate employment for Fosu, her domestic partner,
and when no outside employment options were found, URI appointed
him as a visiting professor for the 2019 spring semester. Id.,
¶¶ 1, 44. URI appointed Fosu to a faculty of practice to teach
in the Political Science Department for the 2019-2020 academic
year.3 Id., ¶ 46. A faculty of practice is a one-year
appointment and a non-tenure position. Id., ¶ 2.
Fosu did not have the academic qualifications to teach core
curriculum classes in the Political Science Department. Id., ¶
47. The Chair of the Political Science Department, Professor
Marc Hutchison, decided that Fosu could teach elective courses
as a faculty of practice. Id., ¶¶ 47 & 48. Fosu was to teach a
course on the Supreme Court and constitutional law, and he also
proposed a course on advocacy, which was approved. Id., ¶ 49.
During the 2019-2020 academic year, Fosu taught elective
3 The position is called faculty of practice both by
defendants and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Doc. no.
119 at 4; Doc. no. 119-5, at 7.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 7 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
undergraduate courses on constitutional law and advocacy and a
graduate course. Id., ¶ 54.
B. Fosu’s Effort to Influence URI’s Decision
In 2019, the position of Chief Diversity Officer at URI was
held by Mary Grace Almandrez, on an interim basis. In February
of 2020, URI began a search for its next Chief Diversity
Officer. Id., ¶ 55. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
Jeannette Riley co-chaired the search committee for the new
Chief Diversity Officer with Vice President of Student Affairs
Kathleen Collins. Id., ¶ 56. The committee planned public
presentations by three people selected as finalists for the
position in mid-February. Id., ¶ 57.
Fosu involved himself in the process for selecting the
Chief Diversity Officer, favoring one candidate, Dr. Sylivia
Spears. Id., ¶ 58. The interim officer, Mary Grace Almandrez,
was also a finalist for the permanent position. Id. The day
before Almandrez’s scheduled presentation to the search
committee, Fosu sent her a twelve-page email with ten
attachments, which he also sent to many URI senior
administrators, including URI President David Dooley, and to
people outside the URI community. Id., ¶¶ 58 & 59.
The email’s heading showed Fosu’s position at URI, with his
URI address, as well as his home address. Doc. no. 119-14,
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 8 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
at 2. It was titled “Notice of Legal Action for Discrimination
Based on Race, Sex and Age.” Id. The email began:
It is with profound sadness and grave concern about
the dearth of African-American diversity at the
University of Rhode Island, that I inform you of our
intention to sue you in your capacity as the interim
Chief Diversity Officer (CDO). This will be a legal
action for social justice based on race, sex, and age
discrimination at URI. This action is joined by
diverse groups of faculty, students and
administrators. It is also part of a hands-on social
justice experiential learning project aimed to expand
diversity at URI and reflective content for my
participatory pedagogy in the classroom where I teach:
“U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court” and
“Examining Institutional Power, Checks and Balances,
and Advocacy for a More Equitable Society”.
Id. Fosu stated that Almandrez’s “efforts as Chief Diversity
Officer have failed to create a diverse, equitable, and
inclusive university for African-Americans to work, learn and
thrive, and we intend to make that case in state and federal
court.” Id.
Fosu went on to assert that Almandrez lacked competence and
provided a recitation of his own experience with social justice
advocacy. He advised Almandrez on how she should have acted and
criticized her efforts and decisions in the position of interim
officer. Fosu also attacked Almandrez’s ethnicity as Southeast
Asian, stating, among other things: “Looking Black does not mean
your soul identifies with African-American daily injustice.”
Id., at 10.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 9 of 44 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
In particular, Fosu challenged Almandrez’s handling of the
hiring of the Director of Diverse Faculty Recruitment and
Retention, largely because Fosu’s choice, Dr. Harry Alston, was
not hired for that position. He accused Almandrez of making
“spurious racist attacks on Dr. Harry Alston’s character to
derail his candidacy.” Id., at 8. Fosu stated that in the
lawsuit he planned to file against Almandrez he would demand an
audit of the hiring process for the Director position.
Fosu also suggested in his email that he represented the
position of a group of URI staff, the Faculty and Staff
Association of the African Diaspora (“FSAAD”). Following
receipt of the email, several members of FSAAD denied that Fosu
spoke for them. Doc. no. 119-15. President Dooley and the
search committee selected Almandrez as the Chief Diversity
Officer. Doc. no. 119-3, at 13.
C. Reappointment and Teaching
During the 2020 spring semester, URI reviewed Fosu’s
teaching for purposes of reappointment, and Professor Marc
Hutchison, chair of the Political Science Department, gave a
positive annual review of Fosu’s teaching. Hutchison also wrote
that the Political Science Department supported Fosu’s
reappointment. Dean Riley also reviewed Fosu’s work and wrote a
positive review. Fosu was reappointed as a faculty of practice
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 10 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
in the political Science Department for the 2020-2021 academic
year.
For the fall semester of 2020, Fosu taught two elective
courses in the Political Science Department. Fosu did not
attend the Department’s first two faculty meetings that were
held in September and October without asking to be excused. He
also did not communicate with Hutchison. During the same time,
Fosu was creating a private corporation, “Diversity Think Tank,”
that he incorporated on September 8, 2020.
D. Diversity Think Tank, Declaration of Diversity, and
Emails
On October 26, 2020, Fosu sent an email titled “Declaration
of Diversity” to URI President Dooley, along with many others
including members of the URI faculty and staff, URI students,
law enforcement officials, and government officials. Doc. no.
119-17. Fosu again targeted the Chief Diversity Officer, Mary
Almandrez, and criticized the hiring process involving Dr.
Sylvia Spears and Dr. Harry Alston. He accused the URI faculty
and staff of racism, collusion, unethical conduct, and
violations of the law. The email included a boxed warning that
“all parties mentioned in this letter and involved in the Dr.
Harry Alston and Dr. Sylvia Spears interview process must not
shred or destroy any documents, must not delete any emails or
electronic messages from November 1, 2019 to present.” Id.,
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 11 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

12
at 2. Fosu also asserted that he and others invoked their
Fourth Amendment rights.
In the email, Fosu notified President Dooley that Fosu’s
private corporation, Diversity Think Tank, was “headquartered”
at URI and that it was the corporation’s goal “to directly
target and expose URI’s indefensible and offensively prejudicial
and discriminatory policies and the people who perpetuate
intentional racism and normalized racist inequities through the
machinations of white supremacy.” Id., at 7. He attached
thirteen exhibits to the email, including his prior email sent
to Almandrez and others, titled “Notice of Legal Action for
Discrimination Based on Race, Sex and Age” with its exhibits.
One of the email exhibits was “Declaration of Diversity”
that purported to be issued by “organized URI students.” Doc.
no. 119-17, at 11-31. The Declaration began with a statement
that “We as organized URI student, hold these facts to be self-
evident, that there is a deliberate and racist dehumanizing
exclusion of highly qualified African-Americans/Blacks,
Latinos/Hispanics and Native Americans from positions of senior
leadership and other positions throughout the university,
including Administrative Staff, Deans, Department Chairs,
Faculty, Functional Staff and Students.” Id. at 11. The
Declaration argued in favor of Fosu’s preferred candidates for
offices at URI, Dr. Harry Alston, Jr. and Dr. Sylvia Spears, and
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 12 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

13
against Chief Diversity Officer Mary Almandrez. The Declaration
also included a list of 46 “complaints and demands.” Id., at
14-31. The ninth demand stated:
We students will create a White-list of all
those white professors who define and list themselves
as diversity initiative conveners, race experts and
researchers while they are silent and benefit from
white supremacy and racism at URI, self-evident by the
fact that no African-American with an ancestry to
slavery and no Latino has been hired to a senior
leadership position since 1892—and NOT ONE WHITE
FACULTY member has expressed a problem with that fact,
and the glaring fact that there are NO BLACK FACULTY
members in the Criminal Justice Department and only a
couple at the Harrington School. You white professors
do not need research to find out about systemic racism
at URI—you are part and parcel of the creation and
maintenance of systemic racism at URI though your
self-serving policies, unapologetic excuses,
discriminatory behavior and your hegemonic culture of
impunity. You should be ashamed of yourselves and we
will help end this metastasized disease of racism.
Your panel discussions about diversity and ethics
should be our panel discussions about diversity and
ethics, and we pick who should be on these panels.
Doc. no. 119-17, at 17. The Declaration was signed by four URI
students who were identified as Diversity Think Tank trustees,
non-student trustees of Diversity Think Tank, and Fosu.
Several of the faculty expressed concern to the department
chair, Professor Hutchison, about the email and the Declaration
of Diversity. Hutchison met with Fosu on October 30, 2020, to
discuss his lack of participation in the Department and the
October 26 email. During the meeting, Hutchison and Fosu
discussed steps the Department could take to promote diversity
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 13 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

14
and scholarship opportunities. They also discussed Fosu’s
complaints about his treatment in the Department and statements
made in the Declaration of Diversity, including the intent to
make and publish “white lists” to expose white professors who
are involved in diversity issues but benefit from white
supremacy and racism at URI.
Fosu attended the Political Science Department’s meeting on
November 6, 2020. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 112. During the meeting Fosu
talked over other faculty and talked about bringing in his army
of lawyers. The faculty felt that if they disagreed with Fosu,
he labeled them racist.
On November 7, 2020, Fosu sent an email to faculty in the
Political Science Department, following up on his remarks during
the November 6 meeting. He criticized his treatment during the
meeting and asserted that the faculty had to stand against
racism or they supported racism. He also called out individual
faculty members to refute their positions during the department
meeting. To one female faculty member, Fosu wrote:
[R]acism and discrimination are not complex or
complicated matters to understand as you mentioned and
implied in your job candidate example. . . . Maybe
you should reflect and recognize that the highly
qualified Black person who interviewed as your search
committee’s first choice, likely declined the job
because s/he wanted to avoid a perceived impending
racial conflict and marginalization after encountering
the reality of our intensely all-white environment. .
. . Step out of your personal defensive mode nurtured
naturally by white privilege and empathize with Black
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 14 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

15
candidates who walk on this campus. . . . I
experienced that subtle disrespect and suspicious
questioning during our meeting on Friday.
Doc. no. 119-21, at 5. In response to another faculty member’s
discussion during the meeting, Fosu wrote: “The main
beneficiaries of Affirmative Action have been White women—not
Black men and not Black women—cultural hegemony has been very
successful at falsely convincing us that Blacks predominately
benefit from Affirmative Action.” Id., at 6. Fosu further
wrote that “[w]hat I was discussing with [a male faculty member]
on a deeper level before I was interrupted by [the female
faculty member] is that we cannot rely on an institution that
has been systemically racist for 128 years to produce
progressive policies that advance racial equity.” Id.
Hutchison testified in his deposition that Fosu’s email
caused distress in the department. Doc. no. 119, ¶¶ 116-120.
Faculty were concerned that they would be publicly accused of
being racist if they taught about race issues in class. Other
faculty told Hutchison that the department could not talk with
Fosu because he would not hear any point of view except his own.
The targeted female faculty member told Hutchison that Fosu was
creating a hostile work environment and bullying female
colleagues. Hutchison reported the faculty’s concerns to Dean
Riley who reported the problems to Provost DeHayes. Riley
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 15 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

16
directed Hutchison to report the female faculty member’s
concerns to URIS’ Title IX officer.
Meanwhile, Fosu sent another email to URI faculty and
administration on November 30, 2020, with the subject “Request
for Meetings PSC312/Ending 128 years of Systemic Racism at URI.”
Doc. no. 119-22, at 3. Fosu proposed meetings “on behalf of
[his] students as part of the advocacy phase of our class, PSC
312.” Id., at 4. Fosu further proposed that his students will
negotiate with the email recipients “to end 128 years of
systemic racism.” Id. He discussed his mother’s treatment for
breast cancer, analogizing to “cur[ing] the disease of
metastasized racism on URI’s campus.” Id., at 5. Fosu again
urged the qualifications of his preferred candidates for
diversity positions at URI, Dr. Sylvia Spears and Dr. Harry
Alston, and derided URI’s Chief Diversity Officer, Mary Grace
Almandrez. He also reasserted that affirmative action and the
Civil Rights Act primarily benefitted white females in academic
institutions, which lead to their “overrepresentation at URI and
other academic institutions nationwide.” Id. Fosu then
proposed a schedule for advocating for the removal of Almandrez
from her position as Chief Diversity Officer at URI and
procedures to promote Dr. Spears and Dr. Alston.
Following the November 30 email, a member of URI’s faculty
whom Fosu included as being in support of Fosu’s positions, sent
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 16 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

17
Fosu an email to remove his name. The faculty member wrote that
he had requested removal previously and stated that he had “zero
interest in remaining a part of this email chain.” Doc. no.
119-23, at 5. In response, Fosu sent a multi-page email copied
to a large group of URI staff and faculty, that posed a long
series of questions to that person that promoted Fosu’s issues
and agenda and included remarks such as, “do you think our
Africana Studies Department should create a committee that
educates or re-educates faculty and administrators like you
about race in America and the sacrifice African-Americans made
with their lives for you to wear a bowtie to act unethically in
an 80% White school?” Id., at 4.
On December 8, 2020, Fosu sent yet another email, this one
to Provost DeHayes and a long list of other recipients,
including members of the Political Science Department, with the
subject “Apologize To Us for 128 years of systemic racism.”
Doc. no. 119-25. Fosu criticized DeHayes for his decision not
to meet with Fosu and his class. He again asserted that the
Chief Diversity Officer was incompetent and that DeHayes’s
“offensively racist policies at URI have caused unwarranted
damage and harm to African Americans, Latino and Native American
job candidates.” Doc. no. 119-25, at 5. Fosu defended the
Declaration of Diversity and asserted his view of racism at URI.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 17 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

18
E. Parent and Student Complaints
A parent of a student in Fosu’s class and five students
complained about Fosu’s instruction and conduct to URI
administrators. Students also complained about Fosu’s actions
to other Political Science Department Faculty and to staff in
URI’s multicultural student center. On the other hand, two
students wrote to Provost DeHayes in support of Fosu.
1. Parent and Student 1
On October 27, 2020, the father of an undergraduate student
at URI, who was enrolled in Fosu’s constitutional law class,
contacted the Office of the Provost to complain about Fosu’s
practice of cancelling classes and also about Fosu’s bias during
class. The complaint was referred to Dean Riley, who asked
Hutchison to address it as Fosu’s department chair. Hutchison
responded that he was increasingly concerned about Fosu’s lack
of communication and detachment from the department but said he
would pursue the matter with the student.
Hutchison contacted the student who told Hutchison that the
day before Fosu sent an email to students just as class was
scheduled to start, saying that he would be late. The class
waited for Fosu who never came. The student also was concerned
about the content taught during class that the student thought
was a biased outlet for Fosu’s personal views and was not
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 18 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

19
focused on constitutional law, the subject of the class.
Hutchison also talked with the student’s father who confirmed
the concerns about cancelling classes and Fosu’s biased
teaching.
2. Students 2 and 3
During November of 2020, Political Science Department
faculty reported to Hutchison that their students were raising
concerns about Fosu, and Hutchison told the faculty that the
students must contact him directly. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 125. On
November 24, 2020, Students 2 and 3 met with Hutchison. The
students were in Fosu’s constitutional law course and reported
that Fosu never set up the expected webpage for the class, that
he was untimely in grading and other interactions with students,
and that he refused to email with students (which is the primary
method of communication between faculty and students outside of
class and office hours), and provided no meaningful feedback.
They reported that he was ten minutes late to class the previous
day. They also reported that Fosu’s teaching was biased and
that instead of teaching anything about the Supreme Court or the
constitution, which were the subjects of the class, he “yelled
about racism.” Doc. no. 119-19, at 5.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 19 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

20
3. Student 4
On December 1, 2020, a fourth student met with Vice
President of Student Affairs Kathy Collins to report student
concerns about Fosu’s class. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 140. That student
requested anonymity because of concern about retribution from
Fosu and expressed fear on the students’ behalf generally.
Collins summarized that student’s report, as follows:
1. Declaration for Diversity was pre-written by Mr.
Fosu and taken to class in September, 2020. Students
were able to do edits and provide comments in a google
doc. None of their comments and edits were accepted
into the document. The student [I] spoke with has not
“seen the document since September.” When students
asked if they could edit it, they were told, “no.”
2. The petition that is up on change.org was
circulated in class and students were told to sign at
the start of a recent class. Students did not write
the petition.
3. Multiple students have requested of Mr. Fosu to
have their names removed from documents, emails, etc.
They were informed by Mr. Fosu that their names could
not be removed. He shared that they were “legally
required to be named because” they “reviewed the
document.”
The student also shared:
- students are “very fearful about grades”
- students are “uncomfortable in class” - especially
with the “misogyny”
- the student expressed that the class was full of
“extreme radicalism”
- the student expressed that Mr. Fosu sees students as
“collateral damage.”
Doc. no. 119-24, at 2.
Student 4 then met with Hutchison, reporting that Fosu
intimidated students into going along with the Declaration of
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 20 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

21
Diversity. Doc. no. 119, at ¶ 141. The student said that
students were not allowed to have a voice. Student 4 reported
misogyny in Fosu’s treatment of female students. Student 4 also
reported that Fosu uses “inappropriate and crude language in
class,” which made Student 4 uncomfortable, and that they had
received inappropriate emails and requests. Doc. no. 119-19, at
7. In addition, the student said that Fosu cancelled classes
without warning. Student 4 explained that the class Hutchison
attended on November 13 was not a normal class.
Student 4 met with Provost DeHayes on December 4, 2020, and
again asked for anonymity because of concern about retaliation
from Fosu. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 149. The student told Provost
DeHayes that Fosu, not the students, wrote the Declaration of
Diversity and that he rejected students’ input. Student 4 said
that although initially they were interested in working with
Fosu on diversity, the experience was different from what they
expected.
4. Student 5
Student 5 who was in Fosu’s advocacy class met with
Hutchison on December 4, 2020. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 152. Student 5
told Hutchison that Fosu limited their advocacy projects to
issues in his Diversity Think Tank and told them that it would
be unethical for them to work on any other matters. Student 5
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 21 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

22
also did not like Fosu’s publication of their name in Fosu’s
communications without their permission. Student 5 said that
other students were not aware that Fosu was publicizing their
names and using their names to promote his own agenda. As an
example, Student 5 described a Zoom class when Fosu abruptly
stopped the class to have the students sign a petition that Fosu
supported. Student 5 also took issue with Fosu including their
name in Fosu’s email and did not like the implication from that
use of their identity. Like the other students, Student 5
reported concern about retaliation from Fosu and that they were
intimidated by him.
5. Student Support
On December 8, 2020, two students wrote to Provost DeHayes
to support Fosu. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 172. They said that they
freely contributed to Fosu’s Diversity Think Tank. DeHayes was
concerned about the other students’ complaints, and the student
support did not change that concern.
F. Fosu Requests Meeting for Presentation of Declaration of
Diversity
On December 6, 2020, Fosu sent an email to Provost DeHayes
asking for a meeting with Fosu and his students to present the
Declaration of Diversity. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 167. DeHayes and URI
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 22 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

23
President Dooley responded that normally they would be pleased
to meet with Fosu’s class but “the document that you refer to as
the Declaration of Diversity was written by you and represents
your opinions being imposed on students and others.” Doc. no.
119-25, at 3. They further stated that “the document includes
numerous inaccurate statements as well as unwarranted,
unsubstantiated, and defamatory personal attacks on several
members of the URI community . . . [and] causes unwarranted
damage to the good name and reputation of the University.” Id.
DeHayes and Dooley declined the invitation and further stated
that “we are deeply disappointed that you have put our students
in a position of having to promote and/or defend your personal
agenda.” Id.
G. Faculty and Administration’s Response to Complaints and
Fosu’s Communications
Provost DeHayes consulted with President Dooley and other
senior administrators about the student and faculty concerns and
complaints. Doc. no. 119, ¶ 164. President Dooley was
particularly concerned that Fosu’s public disparagement of URI
community members (e.g., calling certain faculty and
administrators racists) impeded URI’s work and found those
attacks to be alarming. Id., ¶ 165. Because of their concerns
about the impact on Fosu’s students if he were removed in
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 23 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

24
December at the end of the semester, the administrators decided
not to take action until after Fosu submitted grades for the
2020 fall semester.
On December 10, 2020, URI sent a letter to Fosu to notify
him that he had violated URI’s Acceptable Use Policy. In
particular, the notice cited Fosu’s use of URI’s intellectual
technology resources including URI email to communicate the
opinions of Fosu’s nonprofit corporation, Diversity Think Tank.
He was directed to stop using the URI email system to attack
members of the URI community, for excessive personal use, and
for any use by or on behalf of the Diversity Think Tank.
After Fosu submitted the course grades for his fall
semester classes, Provost DeHayes consulted with President
Dooley and other senior administrators and concluded that URI
must remove Fosu from his teaching assignments for the spring
2021 semester. DeHayes and the other administrators also
concluded that there was no realistic way that Fosu could
continue to teach at URI after his one-year appointment
terminated at the end of the spring semester.
DeHayes decided to have an investigation done by an
external investigator to determine whether URI could terminate
Fosu’s employment before the end of the spring semester. When
URI opened after the holidays, DeHayes’s office tried to contact
Fosu by email, telephone, and text messages without success. On
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 24 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

25
January 12, 2021, DeHayes sent Fosu a letter that placed him on
administrative leave with pay. He directed Fosu not to teach or
otherwise engage in activities related to his employment at URI.
DeHayes also communicated with the faculty union’s
representative and sent him a memorandum that summarized the
reports about Fosu.
H. Resignations from the Diversity Think Tank and Fosu’s
Response
In December of 2020 and continuing into January of 2021
four of the six URI students who signed the Declaration of
Diversity as trustees of Fosu’s Diversity Think Tank resigned
from the Diversity Think Tank. The students asked Fosu to
remove their names from all Diversity Think Tank materials. In
their resignation emails, the students explained that they did
not agree with Fosu’s goals and actions and that he had
sidelined the students’ interests.
Fosu responded to the first student and everyone else on
the email list in a long email with multiple references to the
student as a white man and saying “[o]nly a person who is very
privileged would make a false statement that I do not have the
best interests of students.” Doc. no. 119-28, at 2. Fosu’s
response to the resignation of the other three students
identified them by name, and, included URI community members
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 25 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

26
beyond Diversity Think Tank. Fosu stated that he forgave the
students for their “fabrications, ulterior motives and for the
pusillanimity of [their] incoherent email.” Doc. no. 119-29, at
4. He also said that that “this collective tantrum from you
three, is because I shut down your childhood friend and frat
brother [the first student to resign] . . . [and] [t]he next
[he] has a difference of opinion or disagreement with any
Black/African American man of my caliber he will know how to
speak properly and disagree respectfully.” Id. At the end of
January, another student resigned from the Diversity Think Tank
referencing Fosu’s responses as “accusatory, disagreeable
behavior.” Doc. no. 119-29, at 19.
Fosu’s response to the students was forwarded to the Vice
President of Student Affairs, who shared it with Marc Hutchison.
Hutchison was upset by Fosu’s attack on the students in the
email. In one of the emails, he referred by name to two of the
students who had asked that their names be removed from the
Diversity Think Tank and not used. On April 16, 2021, Provost
DeHayes terminated Fosu’s access to URI email.
I. Administrative Leave
Provost DeHayes issued a letter to Fosu on January 12,
2021, placing Fosu on administrative leave with pay. Doc. no.
119-26. DeHayes notified Fosu that he was relieved of all of
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 26 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

27
his URI obligations, effective immediately, and directed him to
“refrain from all University related work.” Id. DeHayes
explained that the administrative leave decision was made
because of very serious concerns arising from various
credible complaints, allegations, reports, and
communications that have been received by several
University officials. Some of these concerns were
referenced in my two prior letters to you. Our serious
concerns relate to certain aspects of (1) your
behavior and interactions with students in your
classes, such as assertions of coercion, exploitation,
and intimidation relating to student expression that
obstruct the free pursuit of learning for students;
and, (2) your behavior as an employee and your
interactions and communications with University
faculty and staff, including individuals in your
department, that have been hostile, disrespectful
and/or noncollegial as well as disruptive to
departmental and university functions and operations,
and potentially damaging to the reputation of
individuals and the university.
Id. DeHayes further stated that that URI was investigating
further. He also stated that placing Fosu on “administrative
leave will ensure that such behaviors do not continue to have
disruptive or deleterious impacts on University operations or
members of the University community at this time.” Id.
Despite being on administrative leave and having been
notified of URI’s Acceptable Use Policy for email, Fosu
continued to issue emails to large groups using his URI email.
Four students contacted Vice President Collins to complain about
Fosu’s continued publication of their names in association with
his Diversity Think Tank without their permission. Doc. no.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 27 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

28
119, ¶ 217. Because of this continuing misconduct, Provost
DeHayes terminated Fosu’s access to URI email. Id., ¶ 218.
J. External Investigation
URI hired an attorney to investigate the circumstances
surrounding Fosu and to determine whether grounds existed under
the Collective Bargaining Agreement to terminate Fosu before his
one-year appointment ended. The attorney interviewed Fosu’s
students and URI administrators. He prepared a 73-page report
that the URI administration received too close to the end of the
2021 semester to use for the purpose of an early termination of
Fosu’s appointment.
K. Nonrenewal of Fosu’s Appointment
Provost De Hayes notified Fosu on May 19, 2021, that his
one-year appointment as faculty of practice would not be
renewed. Doc. no. 119-32. In the letter, De Hayes stated that
the independent investigation of the concerns and complaints
about Fosu had been completed. He further stated that the
report found the following actions by Fosu were especially
concerning:
coercion, intimidation, and retaliation toward
students limiting their free pursuit of learning;
public expressions of hostility, harassment, and
disrespectful and threatening behavior toward
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 28 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

29
colleagues, and disrespect for opinions that are
divergent from your own;
disruption of departmental processes and overt efforts
on your part to interfere with formally sanctioned
university processes and procedures.
Id. DeHayes wrote that as Fosu had been told previously, his
actions violated URI’s Acceptable Use Policy and the
requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
URI continued Fosu’s paid administrative leave through the end
of the one-year appointment, June 19, 2021.
Discussion
Defendants move for summary judgment on Fosu’s claims on
the merits and also raise qualified immunity as to Fosu’s First
Amendment claim in Count I. Summary judgment is granted on the
federal claims, and the court declines supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims.
A. Section 1983 Claims – Counts I and II
Fosu alleges in Count I that defendants violated his First
Amendment right to free speech by placing him on administrative
leave and then not reappointing him to his faculty of practice
position in retaliation for his expressed opinions on race,
diversity, justice, and inclusion. In Count II, Fosu alleges
that defendants discriminated against him by denying him a forum
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 29 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

30
for his views. Because these claims are denied on the merits,
it is not necessary to address qualified immunity.
1. First Amendment – Count I
“The right to speak on matters of public concern is
guaranteed by the First Amendment.”4 MacRae v. Mattos, 106 F.4th
122, 132 (1st Cir. 2024). Speech by public employees, however,
is subject to “restrictions that are necessary for their
employers to operate efficiently and effectively.” Garcetti v.
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 419 (2006). The Supreme Court has
formulated a multi-part test for public employee First Amendment
claims “to promote the individual and societal interests that
are served when employees speak as citizens on matters of public
concern and to respect the needs of government employers
attempting to perform their important public functions.” Id.,
at 420.
At the first step, the court determines “whether the
employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.”
4 The First Circuit standard for First Amendment cases
brought by public employees is in the process of rehearing en
banc. See Hussey v. City of Cambridge, 165 F.4th 638 (2026) 149
F.4th 57 (1st Cir. 2025); see also MacRae v. Mattos, 606 U.S.
---, 145 S. Ct. 2617 (2025) (statement of Justice Thomas
respecting denial of certiorari, discussing and criticizing the
First Circuit Court of Appeals application of the standard).
The standard existing prior to the vacated decision in Hussey
applies in this case.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 30 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

31
Id., at 418. If not, the First Amendment claim fails. Id. At
the second step, the court determines “whether the relevant
government entity had an adequate justification for treating the
employee differently from any other member of the general
public,” which requires balancing the employee’s interests as a
citizen and the state’s interests as the employer. MacRae, 106
F.4th at 133. The second step is known as Pickering balancing,
referring to in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High
School District 205, Will County, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). Id.
If the balancing weighs in favor of the employee, the employee’s
speech is protected, and the court continues to the third step.
Id. The first two steps are decided by the court as a matter of
law. Guilloty Perez v. Pierluisi, 339 F.3d 43, 51 (1st Cir.
2003).
At the third step, the court determines “whether the
employee’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating
factor in the adverse employment decision.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Even if the plaintiff satisfies
their burden at all three steps, the employer then has the
opportunity to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it
would have reached the same decision regarding the adverse
employment event even in the absence of the protected conduct.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 31 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

32
Defendants argue that Fosu cannot establish that he spoke
as a citizen on matters of public concern at the first step as
to all of his speech and that he cannot establish that all of
his speech was protected at the second step under the Pickering
balancing test. At the outset, it is somewhat unclear what
speech Fosu contends is protected under the First Amendment and
is the basis for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The
court assumes that Fosu asserts First Amendment protection for
the following communications:
1. February 13, 2020 email with the subject “Notice of
Legal Action for Discrimination Based on Race, Sex and Age”
(Almandrez email).
2. October 26, 2020, email with the subject “Declaration
of Diversity.”
3. The “Declaration of Diversity.”
To the extent Fosu also claims protection generally for speech
that occurred during class or for other group emails, he has not
provided specific information to support that basis for the
claim.5
5 If Fosu intended to claim First Amendment protection for
his widely dispersed emails aimed at his dissatisfaction with
the administration about its response to the Declaration of
Diversity, those who left the Diversity Think Tank, and those
who refused to join in his communications, he has not provided
any argument in support. Further, those communications focus on
Fosu’s private concerns and grievances rather than matters of
public interest. His claim does not include those matters.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 32 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

33
a. First Step – Speaking as a Citizen on a
Matter of Public Concern
The analysis at the first step has two parts. Plaintiff
must have spoken as a private citizen, not as a public employee.
Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421-22. Then, plaintiff must also have
spoken on a matter of public concern. Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S.
228, 241 (2014).
As an employee of URI, Fosu was a public employee. A
public employee does not engage in protected speech when he
makes statements pursuant to his official duties because
“[r]estricting speech that owes its existence to a public
employee’s professional responsibilities . . . simply reflects
the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself
has commissioned or created.” Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421-22.
The Supreme Court, however, suggested that an exception may
exist to the official duty test in the academic context
“involving speech related to scholarship or teaching,”
particularly in public colleges and universities. Id., at 425;
Local 8027, AFT-N.H., AFL-CIO v. Edelbut, 651 F. Supp. 3d 444,
452 (D.N.H. 2023). While the First Circuit Court of Appeals has
not addressed the application of the official duty test under
Pickering and Garcetti to public university professors, other
circuit courts have done so and have concluded that First
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 33 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

34
Amendment claims by public university professors based on speech
in the academic context may be actionable. See Pernell v. Fla.
Bd. of Governors of State Univ., 181 F.4th 1135, 1152 (11th Cir.
2026); Reges v. Cauce, 175 F.4th 1014, 1035 (9th Cir. 2026);
Kilborn v. Amiridis, 131 F.4th 550, 558 (7th Cir. 2025);
Josephson v. Ganzel, 115 F.4th 771, 786 (6th Cir. 2024); Heim v.
Daniel, 81 F.4th 212, 221 (2d Cir. 2023); Porter v. Bd. of Trs.
of N. Carolina State Univ., 72 F.4th 573, 582 (4th Cir. 2023).
Those decisions are persuasive. Despite the lack of a
decision on point from the First Circuit, the court assumes that
Fosu’s speech falls within the scholarship and teaching
exception suggested in Garcetti. The next part of the first
step analysis is whether Fosu spoke on a matter of public
concern.
“Speech involves matters of public concern when it can be
fairly considered as relating to any matter of political,
social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a
subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of
general interest and of value and concern to the public.” Lane,
573 U.S. at 241. Speech on public corruption, governmental
malfeasance, neglect of duties by government employees, and
governmental inefficiency all qualify as public concerns.
Briggs v. Town of Ashland, 828 F. Supp. 3d 149, 160 (D. Mass.
2026) (citing cases). “Whether an employee’s speech addresses a
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 34 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

35
matter of public concern must be determined by the content,
form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole
record.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147–48 (1983).
Assuming that the protected communications Fosu claims are
the Almandrez email, the October 26 email, and the Declaration
of Diversity, parts of those communications raise matters of
public concern.
b. Second Step – Balancing Interests
At the second step, the court balances “the value of an
employee’s speech—both the employee’s own interests and the
public’s interest in the information the employee seeks to
impart—against the employer’s legitimate government interest in
preventing unnecessary disruptions and inefficiencies in
carrying out its public service mission.” Decotiis v.
Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22, 35 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In weighing the employer’s interests, “the
court should include in its considerations (1) the time, place,
and manner of the employee’s speech, and (2) the employer’s
motivation in making the adverse employment decision.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Fosu’s interest in racism at URI is a hot-button
political issue. MacRae, 106 F.4th, at 137. Similarly, his
concerns about diversity in hiring and in the student body at
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 35 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

36
URI are recognized public issues. Nevertheless, under the
current rule in the First Circuit, “[s]peech done in a vulgar,
insulting, and defiant manner is entitled to less weight in the
Pickering balancing.” Id. Fosu’s emails and much of the
Declaration of Diversity are insulting to Chief Diversity
Officer Almandrez and others and include personal attacks and
denigrating remarks about individuals and URI faculty and
administration. Those communications generally are entitled to
less weight for purposes of balancing interests.
On the other side of the balance, URI put Fuso on
administrative leave because of his misconduct. Specifically,
coercion, intimidation, and retaliation toward
students limiting their free pursuit of learning;
public expressions of hostility, harassment, and
disrespectful and threatening behavior toward
colleagues, and disrespect for opinions that are
divergent from your own;
[and] disruption of departmental processes and overt
efforts on your part to interfere with formally
sanctioned university processes and procedures.
Doc. no. 119-32. URI had a compelling interest in implementing
its educational goals, including providing instruction to its
students as scheduled and without intimidation or other
inappropriate classroom conduct.6 MacRae, 106 F.4th 122, 137
6 The court is aware that “‘[v]igilance is necessary to
ensure that public employers do not use authority over employees
to silence discourse, not because it hampers public functions
but simply because superiors disagree with the content of
employees’ speech.’” Damiano v. Grants Pass Sch. Dist. No. 7,
140 F.4th 1117, 1147 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Rankin v.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 36 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

37
(recognizing school’s “interest in preventing disruption to the
learning environment”). URI also had a compelling interest in
avoiding disruption of its faculty and administration. See,
e.g., Hedgepeth v. Britton, 152 F.4th 789, 797 (7th Cir. 2025)
(holding that school’s “interest in addressing actual
disruptions and averting future disruption outweighed
[plaintiff’s] speech interests); Griffin v. Univ. of Maine
Sys., No. 22-cv-00212, 2025 WL 1261167, at *8 (D. Me. Apr. 30,
2025); Manchester v. Town of Ludlow, 780 F. Supp. 3d 296, 309
(D. Mass. 2025) (recognizing a school’s “strong interest in
preserving a collegial atmosphere, harmonious relations among
teachers, and respect for the curriculum”).”
In addition, the decisions by URI administrators to first
put Fosu on paid administrative leave and then not to reappoint
him as a faculty of practice were the result of Fosu’s conduct
that caused complaints from his students and caused disruption
at URI, as demonstrated in the record. Fosu frequently was late
to class and cancelled class. His students were intimidated by
him and afraid of retribution if they did not agree with and
participate in his agenda and his company, the Diversity Think
Tank. Faculty in the Political Science Department found him to
McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384 (1983)). In this case, however,
the extreme nature of Fosu’s speech diminishes the weight
afforded to his expressive interests.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 37 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

38
be uninvolved and disruptive when he was involved. Fosu
expressed misogynistic views that intimidated his students and
faculty in his department. When he was directed not to use URI
technology to advance his personal issues and agenda, he
continued to do so. The URI administration spent considerable
amounts of time addressing the problems that Fosu caused.
Therefore, the balance of interests strongly favors
defendants. As a result, Fosu has not demonstrated that his
speech is entitled to First Amendment Protection. Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment on Count I.
2. Equal Protection – Count II
To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must
prove that (1) compared with others similarly situated, “[he] was
selectively treated; and (2) that such selective treatment was
based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion,
intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional
rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person.”
Davis v. Coakley, 802 F.3d 128, 132-33 (1st Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Importantly, an equal protection
claim cannot be a mere restatement of a First Amendment
retaliation claim based on the same facts. Rosaura Bldg. Corp.
v. Municipality of Mayaguez, 778 F.3d 55, 68 (1st Cir. 2015).
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 38 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

39
Fosu alleges that by restricting his speech in violation of
the First Amendment, “Defendants have unconstitutionally
deprived [him] of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Doc. no. 36, ¶ 98. He also alleges
that defendants disciplined him “differently and more harshly
than similarly situated professors at URI.” Id., ¶ 99. To the
extent Fosu’s equal protection claim is based on his First
Amendment retaliation claim, it fails. Further, Fosu provides
no facts to show that defendants treated him differently based
on impermissible consideration or that others, similarly
situated, were treated differently.
Therefore, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Count II.
B. Title VII – Counts V and VI
Fosu alleges that URI and its Board of Trustees violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by terminating his
employment because of his race and by retaliating against him
for asserting that URI had a record of racial discrimination.
The record facts do not support either claim.
1. Racial Discrimination
To state a Title VII claim of employment discrimination, a
plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to show that “(1)
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 39 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

40
[he] belonged to a protected class, (2) [he] performed [his] job
satisfactorily, (3) [his] employer took an adverse employment
decision against [him], and (4) [his] employer continued to have
his duties performed by a comparably qualified person.” Russo
v. N.H. Neurospine Inst., P.A., No. 25-1519, 2026 WL 2491680, at
*6 (1st Cir. Aug. 25, 2026). If the plaintiff makes a prima
facie case, “the burden shifts to the Defendants, who must state
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse
employment actions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
If defendants make that showing, they are entitled to summary
judgment unless plaintiff “raises a genuine issue of material
fact that the reasons offered by the defendants were a pretext
for discrimination.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants do not dispute that Fuso can establish a prima
facie case.7 They contend, however, that based on Fuso’s conduct
they had ample legitimate grounds to place him on administrative
leave and not renew his appointment. The court agrees.
The record establishes that defendants put Fosu on
administrative leave and did not renew his one-year appointment
because of his misconduct and the disruption he caused at URI.
7 Because Fosu did not provide a factual statement or
otherwise respond to the motion for summary judgment, he has not
provided any factual basis to support his claims. Nevertheless,
the court will assume that Fosu could establish a prima facie
case.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 40 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

41
Nothing suggests that Fosu’s race played any part in the
employment decisions. As such, the undisputed facts provide no
basis to suggest that defendants’ employment decisions were a
pretext for racial discrimination. Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on Count V.
2. Retaliation
Title VII also prohibits retaliation against a person who
complains about discriminatory employment practices. Kinzer v.
Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., 99 F.4th 105, 114-15 (1st Cir. 2024).
The prima facie case framework applies to Title VII retaliation
claims. Farid v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll., 181 F.4th 193, 208
(1st Cir. 2026). In the retaliation context, a plaintiff must
demonstrate “that (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected
conduct, (2) the employer took an adverse employment action,
which was (3) in response to the employee’s protected activity.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie claim, “the burden shifts to the
defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory
explanation for its actions.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Then, “the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s
explanation is a pretext . . . [and] that retaliatory animus was
the real motivating factor.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 41 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

42
Defendants contend that Fosu cannot establish that the
defendants’ adverse actions were taken in response to his
protected speech or that they acted with retaliatory animus.8
The record does not demonstrate a causal relationship between
Fosu’s statements about racial discrimination in employment at
URI and defendants’ decisions to terminate his employment at
URI. Because Fosu’s communications about URI’s discriminatory
employment practices began with his email to Almandrez in
February of 2019 and he was not put on administrative leave
until almost a year later, close temporal proximity is lacking.
See Stratton v. Bentley Univ., 113 F.4th 25, 45 (1st Cir. 2024).
In addition, URI provided the same reasons for putting Fosu on
administrative leave and for not renewing his appointment. Fosu
has not shown any inconsistency in URI’s explanations for those
actions. Therefore, Fosu has not met even the relatively light
burden of establishing a prima facie case.
Even if he were able to do so, the record lacks evidence
that defendants’ explanation for the actions terminating Fosu’s
8 Defendants argue that but-for causation is necessary to
establish the third element of a prima facie case of
retaliation. A but-for causation link between protected
activity and adverse action is a required element to prove a
retaliation claim on the merits. Russo, 2026 WL 2491680, at
*12. For purposes of a prima facie case, the burden to prove
causation is “relatively light” and may be shown by
circumstantial evidence, such as a close temporal proximity,
among other circumstances. Román v. Hyannis Air Serv., Inc.,
156 F.4th 18, 28 (1st Cir. 2025).
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 42 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

43
employment was a pretext for retaliation. The record
demonstrates that defendants had ample reason to put Fosu on
administrative leave and to not renew his appointment as stated
in the letter to Fosu:
coercion, intimidation, and retaliation toward
students limiting their free pursuit of learning;
public expressions of hostility, harassment, and
disrespectful and threatening behavior toward
colleagues, and disrespect for opinions that are
divergent from your own;
[and] disruption of departmental processes and overt
efforts on your part to interfere with formally
sanctioned university processes and procedures.
Doc. no. 119-32. Defendants never referenced Fosu’s statements
about discriminatory hiring at URI as a basis for their
decisions. Fosu has shown no causal relationship between his
expressions about discriminatory hiring and the defendants’
decision. Instead, Fosu’s misconduct caused defendants to end
his employment at URI. Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on Counts V and VI.
C. Remaining Claims
Federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case is based
on there being a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Because defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of
Fosu’s federal claims, the court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Fosu’s state law claims. 28
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 43 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>

44
U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Lambert v. Fiorentini, 949 F.3d 22, 29
(1st Cir. 2020). Therefore, the state law claims are dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For these reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(doc. no. 118) is granted as to the federal claims, Counts I,
II, V, and VI. The remaining state law claims are dismissed
without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s motion to unseal certain documents (doc. no.
134) is denied.
Plaintiff’s motions to clarify or correct previous orders
(doc. nos. 136 & 137) are denied.
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
Sitting by Designation
September 21, 2026
cc: Louis Kwame Fosu, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 09/21/26 Page 44 of 44 PageID
#: <pageID>