By TESA CULLI

tesa.culli@register-news.com

BENTON — The federal discrimination lawsuit filed against Rend Lake College by Salah Shakir, college vice president of technology, has been dismissed in its entirety.

Federal Chief Judge David Herndon filed the decision on Monday, one week after denying several motions for dismissal. Herndon issued the order on motions for summary judgment which were filed by both Shakir and the defendants in the case, Rend Lake College, former board members Bill Simpson and Randall Crocker and Bryan Drew.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 3, 2008, claiming racial, national origin and religious discrimination which Shakir alleged happened during and after investigations were held into allegations contained in an anonymous letter written to the college in August 2007.

Herndon found that Shakir could not “meet his burden of showing discrimination under either the direct or indirect method,” and that claims of retaliation were also not shown. Shakir had claimed that not being chosen as the college president during its presidential search was one of the ways in which he was retaliated against.

“According to defendants, the board wanted ‘an external candidate with fresh ideas and they did not belief that (Shakir) was dynamic and qualified enough for the job,’” Herndon stated. “Further, according to defendants, (Shakir’s) poor job performance was also a factor in the decision not to offer him the position of college president.”

“In sum, the court finds no existing issue of material fact supporting (Shakir’s) claim for retaliatory discrimination,” Herndon wrote in his order.

Shakir also claimed violations of his equal protection and due process rights, shown by the college removing him as vice president of student services and placing a freeze on his salary without allowing him to be heard on the issues. However, Herndon ruled the college did give Shakir notice while conducting its investigations into the allegations contained in the anonymous letter received by the college.

Charges of interference with Shakir’s economic advantage and the intentional infliction of emotional distress were also dismissed by the federal court order.

“...Defendants had legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons both for removing him as VP of student services (which would include freezing his salary, if that did, in fact happen...) and, for not selecting him for the position of college president,” Herndon stated.

Herndon explained in order for the court to find intentional infliction of emotional distress, there had to be evidence of outrageous behavior.

“Based on the court’s previous findings herein, there is nothing on the record which leaves an existing issue of material fact signifying any type of behavior or actions taken by Defendants that would, under the definition provided by law, be construed as ‘outrageous,’” Herndon stated. “Rather, the college, as an employer, has the discretionary right to investigate allegations of misconduct regarding its employees. While such an investigation should not go beyond the realms of decency and turn into a proverbial ‘witch hunt,’ that was not the case here. Therefore, while the court can certainly understand that the entire experience was not anywhere near pleasant for plaintiff, and likely he did suffer emotional distress as a result, there is no question of material fact regarding whether defendants intentionally inflicted it upon him.”