Parate, the plaintiff in this action, filed a civil rights action after his teaching contract at the Tennesee State University was not renewed. Parate, was appointed associate professor for the 1982 academic year to teach in the civil engineering department. Parate's teaching qualifications included bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees obtained in the field of engineering from various universities in Europe and Asia. Parates' position at Tennesee State University was a permanent contract renewable annually. Parate presented specific grading guidelines to his students, providing them with the opportunity to document extenuating circumstances to increase the grade earned. During his first class, two students requested a grade change. The first student provided a detailed and documented account of a legal case, Parate moved that student from a B to an A. The second student was denied due to his false medical reports and Parate personally observed him cheat on the final exam. Faced with Parate's refusal, this student appealed to the dean of the engineering school. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Edward I Isibor, served as Dean of the School of Engineering. Both Isibor and the second student were Nigerian. Upon receiving the students' appeal, Isibor forced Parate to meet with him, at which point Parate was informed that he had to change his grading scale, allowing a grade of 86 percent to be an A. On the refusal from Parate, this Isibor insulted, reprimanded and threatened. Parate stating “it would be difficult to renew Parate's contract at TSU” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 269). The next day, Parate met with the associate dean who had prepared a memorandum stating that both students' grades would change from B to A and that the official grading scale would also reflect the percentage change. Parate refused to sign the memorandum as prepared, adding a note that these changes followed the “directions of the dean and department head at the meeting” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). “Samuchin.” . . explained to Parate that there should be no notes referring to Isibor's instructions. . . [he] warned Parate that if he did not sign the retyped memorandums, Isibor would “spoil” his assessment.” Although Parate ultimately signed the memorandums as requested, he did so under duress and out of fear of retaliation. Over the next two academic years, Isibor and Samuchin, the assistant dean, retaliated against Parate on several occasions. They “challenged Parate’s grading criteria in other courses, sent him a letter criticizing his teaching methods; and penalized him with low performance reviews. . . [They also refused] Parate's requests for permitted business travel and appropriate reimbursements. . . hindered Parate's research efforts and his presentation of papers at professional conferences. . . and recommended non-renewal of Parate’s teaching contract” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 269). In March 1985, Parate was informed that his tenure position would not be renewed. In a meeting with Isibor in September 1985, he was informed that “. . . if Parate's performance improved, renewal of his teaching contract would be considered. Isibor concluded by telling Parate “you must obey and never disobey your dean”” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 270). At the end of September and the beginning of October 1985, several discriminatory actions were.