In a decision handed down yesterday by United States District Judge Thomas Thrash of the Northern District of Georgia, in the case Winer v. Mohammad, the court addressed claims of defamation alongside a federal civil rights conspiracy count connected to Title VI.
The case centers on alleged defamatory remarks attributed to Defendant Umaymah Mohammad, a student at the Emory University School of Medicine, regarding Plaintiff Joshua Winer, a physician and professor at Emory….
Mohammad is alleged to have written about Winer that, among other matters,
one of Emory’s medical professors [appearing to refer to Winer] recently volunteered as a medic with an Israeli defense force and has now returned. This individual is said to have participated in aiding and abetting acts described as genocide, in facilitating the destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system and the killing of more than 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory, supposedly teaching medical students and residents how to treat patients.
The plaintiff asserts that Mohammad, along with CAIR Georgia and CAIR Foundation, used this and similar statements to advocate for Emory to examine his fitness for duty or to terminate his employment.
The plaintiff brought a defamation claim; see the court’s opinion for more detail on that count, which the court permitted to proceed in part. The court also allowed the plaintiff’s federal civil rights conspiracy claim to advance, specifically as it relates to a claim that the defendants conspired to deprive him of rights protected by Title VI:
To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has
(1) conspired … (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) taken or caused an action to be taken in furtherance of the conspiracy’s object, and (4) injured an individual’s person or property or deprived her of exercising any right or privilege of a United States citizen….
Title VI provides that no one shall “be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” on the grounds of his “race, color, or national origin.” … [N]owhere in the Second Amended Complaint does the Plaintiff allege Emory’s federal funding as the linchpin for his Title VI-based § 1985(3) claim. Thus, the only arguably proper factual basis for this portion of the Plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim is his assertion that CAIR Georgia conspired with CAIR Foundation—which he contends is federally funded—to “interfere with [his] rights by publicly pressing Emory to investigate and/or terminate his employment” via the IG Post and the allegedly defamatory and false accusations contained therein. He also contends that this discrimination occurred “in the administration of CAIR Foundation’s program or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Interpreting the Plaintiff’s factual allegations in a light favorable to him, he has asserted a § 1985(3) claim based on Title VI at this stage. CAIR Georgia counters that there is no necessary link between CAIR Foundation’s receipt of federal funds and its alleged conspiratorial conduct, but such a nexus is not a prerequisite. To plead a claim under § 2000d, a plaintiff need only allege that the defendant receives federal funds, discriminates against the plaintiff on account of race, color, or national origin, and does so within the context of a federally funded program. The Plaintiff has made those allegations here.
CAIR Georgia also argues that the Plaintiff has failed to plead a racial or other protected-class animus behind the conspirators’ actions… [But the plaintiff] contends that CAIR Georgia’s actions were driven by his Jewish identity and/or Zionist beliefs, stating that his military service stemmed from a duty to serve the Jewish homeland, which is described as integral to his identity as a Jew, and that Zionism is likewise a central element of Jewish identity for a substantial segment of the Jewish community. In essence, the Plaintiff contends that his military service and his association with Zionism function as markers of his Jewish identity, and that his Jewish heritage constitutes a protected class….
While CAIR Georgia maintains that the Plaintiff actually pleads that the defendants sought to express political views, adopting that interpretation would require the Court to construe the Second Amended Complaint narrowly and in the Plaintiff’s favor—a posture the Court cannot adopt.
Viewing the facts as the Plaintiff has alleged them, CAIR Georgia is said to have conspired with CAIR Foundation to create the IG Post in hopes of pressuring Emory to discipline or terminate him because of views about the Plaintiff’s Jewish identity expressed through his Zionist beliefs and his service in the IDF. A crucial aspect of this interpretation is the Plaintiff’s claim that his IDF service was linked to personal duties arising from his nationality and the significance of Zionism within Jewish culture. Taken together, these allegations, at this stage, suffice to show that the conspiratorial actions were motivated by discriminatory intent grounded in a protected class—the Plaintiff’s national origin—not merely by political disagreement.
Whether the claim could survive summary judgment remains a separate issue, and is not addressed in this decision.
