“Third World Dentistry” Remark Not Sufficient For National Origin Discrimination.

Plaintiff is an Egyptian dentist who was enrolled in a two-year dental program at the University of the Pacific. Three months before graduation, the dentist was unsuccessful in inserting a crown. The head of the restorative dentistry program remarked, within hearing of faculty, students and patients, that the dentist’s clinical work was “Third World Dentistry.” Shortly thereafter, a supervisor called the dentist “T.W.” The dentist was required to continue schooling for an additional quarter after graduation, at no extra cost. Instead of going to the required remedial schooling, the dentist took a leave of absence and filed this action contending national origin discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The trial court granted summary judgment to the university, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating the dentist’s claim fails because, under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, [93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668], framework for disparate treatment, the dentist did not establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination. (Rashdan v. Geissberger (Ninth Cir.; August 26, 2014) 764 F.3d 1179.)