Parate, in this case, filed a civil rights action after his teaching contract at Tennesee State University failed to has been renovated. Parate, was appointed associate professor for the 1982 academic year to teach in the Department of Civil Engineering. Parate's teaching credentials included a bachelor's, master's and doctoral degree from various universities in Europe and Asia in the field of engineering. Parates' position at Tennesee State University was a tenure-track contract that was renewable annually. Parate presented specific grading guidelines to his students, giving students the opportunity to document extenuating circumstances to increase their grade. In his first course, two students requested a class change. The first student provided a detailed, documented account of a legal matter, Parate upgraded this student from a B to an A. The second student was denied due to his false medical reports, and Parate personally observed him cheating at the final exam. When Parate refused, the student turned to the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayEdward I Isibor, was dean of the engineering faculty. Isibor and the second student were both Nigerian. After 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% to be an A. Upon Parate's refusal, this Isibor insulted, berated and threatened Parate states that “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 grades for both students would be changed from Bs to A's and that the official grading scale would also reflect the percentage shift. Parate refused to sign the memorandum as it was prepared, adding a notation that these changes were “instructions from the dean and department head at the meeting” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 269). “Samuchin. . . he explained to Parate that there should be no note referring to Isibor's instructions. . . [he] warned Parate that if he did not sign the retyped memoranda, Isibor would “ruin” his assessment.” Although Parate ultimately signed the memoranda as required, he did so under duress and out of fear of retaliation. Over the next two academic years, Isibor and Samuchin, the associate dean, acted retaliatory against Parate on multiple occasions. They “challenged Parate's evaluation criteria in other courses, sent him a letter critical of his teaching methods; and penalized him with low performance ratings. . . [They also refused] Parate's requests for authorized professional travel and appropriate reimbursements. . . it hindered Parate's research efforts and his presentation of papers at professional conferences. . . and recommended that Parate's teaching contract not be renewed” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 269). In March 1985, Parate was informed that his tenured position would not be renewed. In a meeting with Isibor in September 1985 he was informed that “. . . should Parate's performance improve, the renewal of his teaching contract would be considered. Isibor concluded by telling Parate “you must obey and never disobey your principal”” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 270). During the.