Preview
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
BC
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2384CV02425
HRISTINA NIKOLOVA,
Plaintiff,
V.
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant Trustees of Boston College (“BC”) hereby answers Plaintiff Hristina
Nikolova’s (“Nikolova” or “Plaintiff’) Complaint and Jury Demand (the “Complaint”). Except
as otherwise stated below, BC denies all allegations in Nikolova’s Complaint.
Precis1
The “Precis” is irrelevant to this matter and does not contain a factual allegation against
BC that is susceptible to an answer. No answer is required.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Admitted that BC offered Nikolova employment in 2013 and hired her in 2014 as
a tenure-track Assistant Professor in BC’s Carroll School of Management (“CSOM”) Marketing
Department. BC’s offer of employment speaks for itself. Otherwise denied.
2. Denied.
1
BC includes Nikolova’s unnumbered headings for ease of reference. BC does not believe
responses to Nikolova’s headings are required. To the extent responses are required, BC denies
the substance of all of Nikolova’s headings.
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
3. The ?rst sentence is denied. As to the second sentence, BC denies that the quoted
language represents BC’s evaluation of Nikolova’s research, teaching, and service record. The
quoted language is taken from various documents that are being taken out of context, and those
documents speak for themselves. As to the third sentence, BC admits that Nikolova received the
Coughlin Assistant Professorship. As to the fourth, ?fth, and sixth sentences, BC states that there
is no Fourth Year Tenure Review. Answering further, BC states that the report of the Fourth
Year Review Committee speaks for itself and denies the misleading characterizations she makes
by selectively quoting from it.
4. As to the ?rst sentence, admitted that nine tenured faculty members of CSOM’s
Marketing Department voted 9-0 to recommend Nikolova for promotion to Associate Professor
with tenure, but otherwise denied. Answering further, BC denies Nikolova’s characterizations of
the reputations of the individuals who submitted recommendation letters to the Promotion &
Tenure Committee (“PTC”) and ?lrther denies Nikolova’s characterizations of the strength of
those recommendations. As to the second sentence, the Department Chair’s “Summary of
Department Discussion” speaks for itself. Answering ?lrther, BC states that there is no CSOM
Tenured Faculty Committee.
5. BC denies Nikolova’s characterizations of her recommendation letters. The letters
speak for themselves.
6. BC denies that Nikolova exceeded BC’s requirements for tenure and denies that
BC promised to promote Nikolova with tenure. Answering ?lrther, BC lacks suf?cient
knowledge or information as to what Nikolova “expected.”
7. Admitted only that BC denied Nikolova’s application for promotion with tenure.
Otherwise denied. Answering further, BC states that in 2017, the Marketing Department
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
informed Nikolova that she must develop a stronger argument that she was the key driver of her
research separate from her PhD advisory committee and that she must demonstrate that she was
engaged in independent scholarship; BC informed Nikolova that independent scholarship was a
key theme at CSOM. Answering ?lrther, BC states that BC communicated to Nikolova its
concerns about Nikolova’s research before her tenure review.
8. Denied.
9. Denied.
10. Paragraph 10 states a conclusion of law; thus, no response is required.
11. PARTIES
11. Upon information and belief, admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Answering paragraph 13, BC states that the home page of BC’s website includes
references to BC’s mission and history.
14. Paragraph 14 states a conclusion of law; thus, no response is required.
15. Admitted that the individuals listed are employed by BC. Answering ?lrther, BC
states that President William Leahy is President of BC; there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty
Committee; Provost Quigley has the authority to appoint and reappoint faculty, and he advises
the President on promotion, tenure, and appointment of faculty members to chairs; Dean
Boynton is the Dean of CSOM and acted as Chair of Nikolova’s tenure committees; and Senior
Associate Dean of Faculty Sadka also serves as chair of CSOM’s Finance Department.
16. Admitted only that BC’s University Statutes contain operating policies of BC,
including policies that apply to committees involved in promotion and tenure review.
111. FACTS
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
A. The Contract between Boston College and Nikolova
17. Admitted that BC extended a written offer of employment to Nikolova in October
2013. The offer letter speaks for itself.
18. Admitted that BC and Nikolova entered into a contract in April 2014 pursuant to
which Nikolova was appointed as a tenure-track Assistant Professor. As to the remaining
allegations, no answer is required because the contract speaks for itself.
19. No answer is required because the contract speaks for itself
20. No answer is required because the contract speaks for itself
21. BC denies that Nikolova exhibited all of the qualities BC sought among its
tenured faculty and denies that she performed under the contract.
22. No answer is required because the contract speaks for itself
23. Admitted only that BC has University Statutes with many provisions; the Statutes
speak for themselves. Paragraph 23 is otherwise denied.
24. Denied. Answering further, BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to
what Nikolova “expected,” and denies paragraph 24 insofar as it implies that BC failed to abide
by the University Statutes.
25. Admitted only that Nikolova was reappointed as an Assistant Professor in 2016,
2018, and 2020. Answering ?lrther, BC denies that the standards for reappointment as an
Assistant Professor are the same as the standards for tenure and promotion decisions.
26. Denied that BC made “promises” to Nikolova beyond any contractual obligations
it had to Nikolova or that BC’s adherence to statutes and policies constituted contractual
promises. Answering further, denied insofar as paragraph 26 implies that BC failed to adhere to
any statutes or policies concerning discrimination or retaliation with respect to Nikolova.
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
B. Marketing as an academic discipline
27-29. Paragraphs 27-29 do not contain any factual allegations that BC did, or failed to
do, anything with respect to Nikolova. Paragraphs 27-29 also contain matters of opinion as to
which some scholars may disagree, in part. Accordingly, no answer is required.
30. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty
Committee, and states that the Department Chair’s “Summary of Department Discussion” speaks
for itself.
3l . Denied.
C. BC’s high praise for Nikolova’s research before she became a mother
32. BC admits that Dean Boynton and Senior Associate Dean Sadka annually review
the performance of all faculty members in connection with the annual salary review. Answering
?lrther, BC states that CSOM assigns mentors to all assistant professors and newly hired non-
tenure track faculty to provide feedback in connection with the performance of their duties as
faculty members. BC denies that Dean Boynton and Associate Dean Sadka pay “particular
attention to progress toward tenure.”
33. Answering paragraph 33, BC states that CSOM assigns mentors to all assistant
professors and newly hired non-tenure track faculty.
34. Admitted, with the exception that mentors do not guide faculty members to
tenure, feedback may or may not be written, and CSOM explicitly advises mentors that
mentoring reports “should NOT explicitly discuss progress towards tenure.”
35. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to ways in which junior faculty
“rely” on annual mentoring reports.
36. Denied.
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
1. 2014
37. Answering paragraph 37, BC states that Department Chair Lemon wrote a 2014
report on Nikolova, some of which is quoted in paragraph 37. Answering further, BC states that
Professor Lemon encouraged Nikolova “to begin thinking about a single-authored project” and
stressed the importance of generating “evidence of independent scholarship, in addition to high
quality articles with impact.”
2. 2015
38. Answering paragraph 38, BC states that Professor Tehranian nominated Nikolova
for the Coughlin Assistant Professorship, and states that his letter speaks for itself.
39. Answering paragraph 39, BC states that Department Chair Lemon recommended
Nikolova for the Coughlin Assistant Professorship, and states that her letter speaks for itself.
40. Answering paragraph 40, BC states that Dean Boynton wrote to Provost Quigley
in support of Nikolova receiving the Coughlin Assistant Professorship, and states that his letter
speaks for itself. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Provost Quigley’s letter to President Leahy
speaks for itself, and BC admits that President Leahy approved the appointment of Nikolova to
the Coughlin Assistant Professorship.
4l . Admitted.
42. Answering paragraph 42, BC states that its publications have made statements
concerning endowed professorships; those statements speak for themselves.
43. Answering paragraph 43, BC states that Provost Quigley wrote a letter to
Nikolova on or about October 23, 2015, and states that the letter speaks for itself.
44. Answering paragraph 44, BC states that Dean Boynton wrote a letter to Nikolova
on or about October 27, 2015, and states that the letter speaks for itself.
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
3. 2016
45. Answering the ?rst sentence of paragraph 45, BC states that Nikolova engaged in
?lrther research in 2016, but denies her characterization of it. Answering the remainder of
paragraph 45, BC states that Professor Brasel wrote a letter to Nikolova, and BC states that the
letter speaks for itself.
4. 2017-F0urth Year Tenure Review
46. Denied. Answering further, BC states that the Fourth Year Review is not a
“Tenure Review” as Nikolova identi?es the review in her Complaint; on November 10, 2017
Nikolova’s Department Chair sent to Nikolova a cover letter with his comments on the October
15, 2017, Fourth Year Review Committee Report, which he attached to his cover letter.
47. Answering paragraph 47, BC states that the Fourth Year Review is a review of an
assistant professor’s research, teaching, and service. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the
characterization in paragraph 47 of the Fourth Year Review.
48. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no “Fourth Year Tenure
Review” and states that the Fourth Year Review is evaluative.
49. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no “Fourth Year Tenure
Review Committee,” and ?lrther states that Fourth Year Review Committees are instructed that
the review is “not a tenure review.”
50. Answering paragraph 50, BC states that Nikolova’s Department Chair provided
Nikolova with a cover letter dated November 10, 2017, which attached the Fourth Year Review
Committee’s Report dated October 15, 2017. Answering further, BC states that the Report
contains the language quoted in paragraph 50. The remaining allegations in paragraph 50 are
denied.
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
51. Answering paragraph 51, BC states that the Fourth Year Review Committee’s
Report contains the language quoted in paragraph 51. The remaining allegations in paragraph 51
are denied.
52. Answering paragraph 52, BC states that the Fourth Year Review Committee
encouraged Nikolova to take the actions described in paragraph 52.
53. Answering paragraph 53, BC states that Department Chair Brasel wrote to
Nikolova on or about November 10, 2017. Among other matters, Department Chair Brasel
informed Nikolova that she must develop a stronger argument that she was the key driver of her
research separate from her advisory committee and that she must demonstrate that she was
engaged in independent scholarship, which he informed Nikolova was a “key theme” at CSOM.
54. Answering paragraph 54, BC states that Department Chair Brasel wrote to
Nikolova on or about November 10, 2017, and BC states that the letter contained the comments
described in the answer to paragraph 53.
55. Answering paragraph 55, BC states that Associate Professor Hagvedt wrote a
report on Nikolova’s research for 2017-2018; the report speaks for itself.
56. Answering paragraph 56, BC states that Associate Professor Hagvedt wrote a
report on Nikolova’s research for 2018; the report speaks for itself.
D. Nikolova begins having children and taking maternity leave
57. Answering paragraph 57, BC denies that Nikolova had distinguished herself as
one of the top marketing scholars in her cohort, and BC denies that Nikolova had exceeded every
performance standard BC had set for her. Answering ?lrther, BC has insuf?cient knowledge and
information to respond to the remaining allegation in paragraph 57.
58. Upon information and belief, admitted.
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
59. Admitted.
60. Answering paragraph 60, BC states that sometime in Spring 2020, during
COVID, Nikolova walked into Dean Boynton’s of?ce, unannounced, said Hello, and that Dean
Boynton, surprised Nikolova was there, said, in substance, “I’m surprised to see you” and “I
didn’t know you were back yet.”
61. Upon information and belief, admitted.
62. Upon information and belief, admitted.
63. Upon information and belief, admitted.
64. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
paragraph 64.
E. Signi?cance of publication in top Marketing Journals
65. Denied. Answering further, BC states that publication of research results in peer-
refereed journals can be an indication of progress in research.
66-74. Answering paragraph 66 through 74, BC states that the statements in paragraphs
66-74 make no allegations against Boston College. Answering further, BC states that the
statements are matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Accordingly,
BC is unable to respond. Answering ?lrther, BC states that the Journal of Marketing Research
and the Journal of Consumer Psychology are highly regarded Marketing journals, the peer-
reView process at highly regarded Marketing journals is, ideally, rigorous, and that the
descriptions in paragraphs 73 and 74 re?ect ideal procedures and results in the publication of
research papers.
F. Nikolova applies for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
75. Answering paragraph 75, BC states that on or about August 13, 2021, Nikolova
applied for promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure and included a dossier. BC denies the
remaining allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 75.
76. Answering paragraph 76, BC states that Nikolova’s dossier speaks for itself.
77. Answering paragraph 77, BC states that BC’s Promotion and Tenure Procedures
are, in part, in writing and those writings speak for themselves.
78. Answering paragraph 78, BC states that BC’s University Statutes speak for
themselves.
79. Denied.
80. Answering paragraph 80, BC states that none of the members of the PTC in
academic year 2021-22 were members of the Marketing Department. At least one member of the
PTC had published multiple articles in a peer-reviewed Marketing journal.
81. Answering paragraph 81, BC states that all members of the PTC had the ability to
determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research.
82. Answering paragraph 82, BC states that all members of the PTC had the ability to
determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research. Answering further, BC
states that at least one PTC member had published multiple articles in a peer-reviewed Marketing
journal.
83. Answering paragraph 83, BC states that all members of the PTC had the ability to
determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research.
84. Answering paragraph 84, BC states that Professor Chod was a member of the
Business Analytics Department, and that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those
10
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Chod is available on
the BC website.
85. Answering paragraph 85, BC states that Associate Dean for Teaching and
Learning Judith Gordon was chair of the Management and Organization Department, and BC
states that her areas of knowledge and expertise include those stated. Answering further, BC
states that information concerning Professor Gordon is available on the BC website.
86. Answering paragraph 86, BC states that Professor Pratt was a member of the
Management and Organization Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and
expertise include those stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Prof. Pratt has published
multiple articles in a peer-reviewed Marketing journal. Answering ?lrther, BC states that
information concerning Professor Pratt is available on the BC website.
87. Answering paragraph 87, BC states that Professor Pontiff was a member of the
Finance Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those
stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Pontiff is available on
the BC website.
88. Answering paragraph 88, BC states that Professor Bradshaw was a member of the
Accounting Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those
stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Bradshaw is available
on the BC website.
89. Answering paragraph 89, BC states that Professor Strahan was a member of the
Finance Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those
stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Strahan is available
on the BC website.
11
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
90. Answering paragraph 90, BC states that Senior Associate Dean Sadka was chair
of the Finance Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include
“Empirical Asset Pricing,” “Liquidity in Capital Markets,” and “Behavioral Finance.”
Answering further, BC states that information concerning Senior Associate Dean Sadka is
available on the BC website.
91. Answering paragraph 91, BC states that Dean Boynton conducts research on a
variety of topics, including strategy, high performing teams, managing information technology
resources, organizational learning and transformation, innovation, and leadership. His research
has appeared in books, leading academic journals, and practitioner publications spanning three
decades. He has applied his research in work assisting senior executives and consulting with
businesses in the United States and abroad.
92. Denied. Answering ?lrther, BC states that all PTC members had the ability to
determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research.
G. CSOM’s Tenured Faculty Committee votes 9-0 that Nikolova be promoted
with tenure
93. Denied.
94. Denied.
95. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty
Committee and that nine tenured members of the Marketing Department met on August 24,
2021, and voted in favor of promotion with tenure.
96. Answering paragraph 96, BC states that nine tenured members of the Marketing
Department voted in favor of promotion with tenure, and the Department Chair provided a
“Summary of Department Discussion” to the PTC; the summary speaks for itself.
12
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
97. Answering paragraph 97, BC states that the Department Chair provided a
“Summary of Department Discussion” to the PTC; the summary speaks for itself.
98. Upon information and belief, admitted.
G. External letter writers strongly support Nikolova’s tenure application
99. Denied.
100. Answering paragraph 100, BC states that BC sent letters to external reviewers.
The letters speak for themselves.
101. Answering paragraph 101, BC states that on or about August 20, 2021, Professor
Goldsmith wrote a letter addressed to Dean Boynton; the letter speaks for itself.
102. Answering paragraph 102, BC states that on or about September 22, 2021,
Professor Reczek wrote a letter addressed to the members of the PTC; the letter speaks for itself.
103. Answering paragraph 103, BC states that on or about August 16, 2021, Professor
Lamberton wrote an unsolicited letter addressed to the Tenure and Promotion Committee; the
letter speaks for itself.
H. BC rejects Nikolova’s tenure application and hides its reasons
104. Answering paragraph 104, BC states that the PTC unanimously voted not to
recommend Nikolova for promotion with tenure. The remaining allegations are denied.
105. Answering paragraph 105, BC states that on or about February 24, 2022,
President Leahy advised Nikolova that he was denying Nikolova’s application for promotion
with tenure by letter; the letter speaks for itself. The remaining allegations are denied.
106. Answering paragraph 106, BC states that on or about February 24, 2022,
President Leahy advised Nikolova that he was denying Nikolova’s application for promotion
with tenure by letter; the letter speaks for itself
13
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
107. Answering the ?rst sentence of paragraph 107, BC states that Nikolova asked for
a written statement of reasons; answering ?lrther, BC lacks knowledge or information as to
whether Nikolova was “stunned.” Answering the second sentence, BC states that the University
Statutes speak for themselves.
108. Answering paragraph 108, BC states that on or about March 4, 2022, Provost and
Dean of Faculties David Quigley wrote a letter to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself.
109. Answering the ?rst sentence of paragraph 109, BC states that the University
Statutes speak for themselves. The remaining allegations are denied.
110. The ?rst sentence is admitted. The remaining allegations are denied.
111. Denied.
112. Denied.
113. Answering paragraph 113, BC states that BC’s concerns about the independence,
quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research were genuine; the remaining allegations are denied.
114. Answering paragraph 114, BC states that BC’s concerns about the independence,
quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research were genuine; the remaining allegations are denied.
115. Denied.
116. The ?rst sentence is admitted. The remaining allegations in paragraph 116 are
denied, except that BC admits that Ordabayeva was awarded promotion with tenure. Answering
?lrther, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table following paragraph 116.
117. Answering paragraph 117, BC states that the allegations present a misleading and
inaccurate account of Ordabayeva’s research. Answering further, BC states that BC determined
that Ordabayeva had met the criteria for promotion with tenure, whereas Nikolova had not.
14
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
118. Answering paragraph 118, BC states that in March 2022, Dr. Lamberton
contacted President Leahy; the remaining allegations are denied.
119. Answering paragraph 119, BC states that Dr. Lamberton’s email to President
Leahy speaks for itself.
120. Answering paragraph 120, BC states that Dr. Lamberton’s email to President
Leahy speaks for itself.
121. Upon information and belief, admitted.
122. Answering paragraph 122, BC states that on or about March 2022, Nikolova met
with Dean Boynton, Provost Quigley, and also with President Leahy. The remaining allegations
are denied.
123. Denied as stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that among other matters
discussed, Nikolova indicated that she had a strong commitment to her family, stated that she
wished to remain at BC, and thanked President Leahy for meeting and listening to her.
Answering further, BC states that following their meeting Nikolova wrote an email to President
Leahy, in which she thanked President Leahy for his “kindness, thoughtfulness, care and
encouragemen .”
124. Denied.
I. Nikolova appeals to the Faculty Review Panel
125. Answering paragraph 125, BC states that on or about April 28, 2022, Nikolova
appealed to the Faculty Review Panel by letter; the letter speaks for itself.
126-133. Answering paragraphs 126-133, BC states that the FRP issued a report on or
about June 13, 2022; BC states that the report speaks for itself. Answering further, BC states that
it denies the accuracy of some of the FRP’s ?ndings.
15
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
134. Denied.
135. Denied.
136. Denied.
J. Nikolova continues to oppose BC’s discrimination based on her sex,
pregnancy, and maternity
137. Answering paragraph 137, BC states that Nikolova wrote to BC’s general counsel
on or about June 21, 2022; answering ?lrther, BC states that the email speaks for itself.
138. Answering paragraph 138, BC states that Nikolova wrote to BC’s general counsel
on or about July 6, 2022; answering further, BC states that the email speaks for itself.
K. President Leahy overrules the FRP and does not say why
139. Answering paragraph 139, President Leahy received materials from the tenured
members of the Marketing Department, unsolicited letters, and the report of the Faculty Review
Panel. The remaining allegations in paragraph 139 are denied.
140. Answering paragraph 140, BC states that President Leahy wrote to Nikolova on
or about July 6, 2022; the letter speaks for itself. Answering ?lrther, BC states that President
Leahy declined to follow the recommendation of the FRP.
141. Denied.
142. Denied.
L. Nikolova ?les a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and MCAD
alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, and maternity.
143. Answering paragraph 143, BC states that in or about August 2022, Nikolova ?led
a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and MCAD; the charge speaks for itself. The
remaining allegations are denied. Answering further, BC states that Dean Boynton signed BC’s
response to Nikolova’s charge.
16
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
M. Nikolova applies for promotion with tenure a second time, supplementing
her already superlative dossier with her accomplishments from the past year,
showing several more papers published in the top Marketing Journals,
several additional, prestigious Marketing awards and honors which
recognized the quality and importance of her research, several more
presentations made at top Marketing conferences, and several additional
invited talks at other Universities
144. Admitted.
145. Answering paragraph 145, BC states that on or about August 15, 2022 Nikolova
emailed Dean Boynton; the email and attached document speak for themselves.
146. Answering paragraph 146, BC states that Professor and Marketing Department
Chair Kathleen Seiders sat on the PTC in 2022-2023 but not 2021-2022, and Professor Pratt was
not on the PTC in 2022-2023. Answering further, BC states that Prof. Seiders was a tenured
faculty member in 2021-2022 and voted in favor of promotion with tenure in 2021-2022.
Answering ?lrther, BC states that in 2022-2023 Prof. Seiders was a member of the PTC that
voted unanimously not to recommend promotion with tenure.
147. Answering paragraph 147, BC states that on or about August 15, 2022 Nikolova
submitted a dossier to Dean Boynton via email; the dossier speaks for itself.
148. Denied.
149. Answering the first three sentences of paragraph 149, BC states that Nikolova
received the Society for Consumer Research Early Career Award, joined the Editorial Review
Board of the Journal of Consumer Research, and became the Treasurer-in—Trainingof the
Association for Consumer Research. The fourth sentence of paragraph 149 makes no allegation
against BC. Answering the ?fth sentence of paragraph 149, BC states that the ACR-AMA grant
was awarded to several co-authors in the amount of $2,500, and the CBS grants—which are
17
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
deemed “small” on the grant webpage—were awarded twice in 2022, one of which was to co-
authors.
150. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 150.
Answering further, BC states that the degree to which the conferences are “prestigious” is a
matter of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree.
151. Answering paragraph 151, BC states that on or about October 18, 2022 Nikolova
met with Professor Seiders and Vice Provost of Faculties Billy Soo. Otherwise denied.
152. Answering paragraph 152, BC states that on or about October 18, 2022 Nikolova
met with Professor Seiders and Vice Provost of Faculties Billy Soo. Otherwise denied.
153. Answering paragraph 153, BC states that in or about early November 2022,
Nikolova supplemented her dossier with a letter from Jeffery Inman, PhD; the letter speaks for
itself.
154. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty
Committee and that seven members of the Marketing Department met on September 1, 2022 and
voted in favor of promotion with tenure.
155. Answering paragraph 155, BC states that external reviewers wrote letters that
speak for themselves.
156. Answering paragraph 156, BC states that on or about February 24, 2023,
President Leahy wrote a letter addressed to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself.
157. Answering paragraph 157, BC states that on or about February 24, 2023,
President Leahy wrote a letter addressed to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself.
158. Answering paragraph 158, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met
with Dean Boynton and Professor Sadka. Answering the second sentence, BC states that Dean
18
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
Boynton and Senior Associate Dean Sadka informed Nikolova that there were concerns about
the quality, independence, and impact of her research.
159. Answering paragraph 159, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met
with Dean Boynton and Professor Sadka. The remaining allegations are denied.
160. Answering paragraph 160, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met
with Provost Quigley. The remaining allegations are denied. Answering ?lrther, BC states that
Provost Quigley, among other matters, stated that the PTC discussed its concerns about the
quality, independence, and impact of Nikolova’s research and was concerned about Nikolova’s
overreliance on papers with multiple authors and senior advisors.
161. Answering paragraph 161, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met
with President Leahy. The remaining allegations are denied.
162. Answering paragraph 162, BC states that on or about March 6, 2023, Provost
Quigley wrote a letter to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself.
163. Answering paragraph 163, BC states that on or about March 20, 2023, Nikolova
?led an amended Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and MCAD; the amended charge
speaks for itself.
164. Answering paragraph 164, BC states that on or about April 10, 2023, Nikolova
submitted an appeal to the Faculty Review Panel, with a copy to President Leahy; the appeal
speaks for itself.
165. Answering paragraph 165, BC states that on or about April 10, 2023, Nikolova
submitted an appeal to the Faculty Review Panel; the appeal speaks for itself. Answering further,
BC denies that President Leahy and Dean Boynton made any gender-stereotyped statements.
166. Upon information and belief, admitted.
19
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
167. Answering paragraph 167, BC states that on or about May 31, 2023, the FRP
wrote a letter addressed to President Leahy; the letter speaks for itself.
168. Admitted.
169. Denied. Answering further, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table
following paragraph 169.
170. Denied. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table
following paragraph 170.
171. Denied. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table
following paragraph 171 .
172. Answering paragraph 172, BC states that the statements about unidenti?ed
(“several”) CSOM Faculty and other statements are ambiguous; accordingly, BC is unable to
respond.
173. Denied. Answering further, BC denies that it forced Nikolova to leave BC in
2023.
174. Denied. Answering further, BC states that as of the time that Nikolova reapplied
for tenure in August 2022, her dossier indicated that she had twelve articles published with co-
authors and one solo-authored forthcoming article.
175. Admitted that the ten articles referred to in paragraph 175 were published in FT50
journals, with the exception that they were all co-authored.
176. Answering paragraph 176, BC states that the statements about unidenti?ed
publications are ambiguous; accordingly, BC is unable to respond.
20
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
177. Answering paragraph 177, BC states that the statements are ambiguous
(unidenti?ed peers, “54” peers, and “stronger publication record”); accordingly, BC is unable to
respond.
178. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to whether Nikolova’s
dissertation paper was given the awards referenced in paragraph 178; accordingly, BC is unable
to respond. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Nikolova’s dissertation “Individual and Social
Dynamics of Self Control” contains three chapters, only one of which mentions “dyads” or
“dyadic decision making.”
179. Admitted, with the exception that the paper was co-authored with Nikolova’s
senior colleague, Gergana Nenkov, who received promotion with tenure from BC in 2012.
180. Answering paragraph 180, BC states that Nikolova and thirty-?ve other
individuals received the Marketing Science Institute Young Scholar Award in 2019. Answering
further, BC states that the degree to which the award is “prestigious” is a matter of opinion as to
which some scholars may disagree. Accordingly, BC is unable to respond.
181. Answering paragraph 181, BC states that in 2015 Nikolova was awarded the
Diane Harkins Coughlin and Christopher J. Coughlin Sesquicentennial Assistant Professorship at
CSOM. Answering ?lrther, BC states that the position may only be awarded to an assistant
professor.
182. Admitted, with the exception that these three publications were with co-authors.
183. Denied as stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that in return for Nikolova’s
helping to design ?eld studies and doing other work, BC was to receive no funds.
184. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 184.
21
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM
Superior Court Suffolk
-
Docket Number 2384CVO2425
185. Answering paragraph 185, BC states that the statements are ambiguous and are
matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Accordingly, BC is unable to
respond.
186. Answering paragraph 186, BC states that the statements are ambiguous and are
matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Answering ?lrther, BC lacks
knowledge or information as to where Nikolova’s “papers are taught.” Accordingly, BC is
unable to respond.
187. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 187.
Answering further, BC states that as of the time that Nikolova reapplied for tenure in August
2022, her dossier indicated that she had presented at, or planned to present at, forty-six
conferences. Answering further, BC is unable to respond to whether Nikolova’s research was
“featured” at the conferences.
188. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 188.
189. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 189. The
statements are also ambiguous.
190. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 190. The
statements are also ambiguous.
191.
Preview
Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - BC Docket Number 2384CVO2425 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2384CV02425 HRISTINA NIKOLOVA, Plaintiff, V. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant Trustees of Boston College (“BC”) hereby answers Plaintiff Hristina Nikolova’s (“Nikolova” or “Plaintiff’) Complaint and Jury Demand (the “Complaint”). Except as otherwise stated below, BC denies all allegations in Nikolova’s Complaint. Precis1 The “Precis” is irrelevant to this matter and does not contain a factual allegation against BC that is susceptible to an answer. No answer is required. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Admitted that BC offered Nikolova employment in 2013 and hired her in 2014 as a tenure-track Assistant Professor in BC’s Carroll School of Management (“CSOM”) Marketing Department. BC’s offer of employment speaks for itself. Otherwise denied. 2. Denied. 1 BC includes Nikolova’s unnumbered headings for ease of reference. BC does not believe responses to Nikolova’s headings are required. To the extent responses are required, BC denies the substance of all of Nikolova’s headings. Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 3. The ?rst sentence is denied. As to the second sentence, BC denies that the quoted language represents BC’s evaluation of Nikolova’s research, teaching, and service record. The quoted language is taken from various documents that are being taken out of context, and those documents speak for themselves. As to the third sentence, BC admits that Nikolova received the Coughlin Assistant Professorship. As to the fourth, ?fth, and sixth sentences, BC states that there is no Fourth Year Tenure Review. Answering further, BC states that the report of the Fourth Year Review Committee speaks for itself and denies the misleading characterizations she makes by selectively quoting from it. 4. As to the ?rst sentence, admitted that nine tenured faculty members of CSOM’s Marketing Department voted 9-0 to recommend Nikolova for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, but otherwise denied. Answering further, BC denies Nikolova’s characterizations of the reputations of the individuals who submitted recommendation letters to the Promotion & Tenure Committee (“PTC”) and ?lrther denies Nikolova’s characterizations of the strength of those recommendations. As to the second sentence, the Department Chair’s “Summary of Department Discussion” speaks for itself. Answering ?lrther, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty Committee. 5. BC denies Nikolova’s characterizations of her recommendation letters. The letters speak for themselves. 6. BC denies that Nikolova exceeded BC’s requirements for tenure and denies that BC promised to promote Nikolova with tenure. Answering ?lrther, BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to what Nikolova “expected.” 7. Admitted only that BC denied Nikolova’s application for promotion with tenure. Otherwise denied. Answering further, BC states that in 2017, the Marketing Department Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 informed Nikolova that she must develop a stronger argument that she was the key driver of her research separate from her PhD advisory committee and that she must demonstrate that she was engaged in independent scholarship; BC informed Nikolova that independent scholarship was a key theme at CSOM. Answering ?lrther, BC states that BC communicated to Nikolova its concerns about Nikolova’s research before her tenure review. 8. Denied. 9. Denied. 10. Paragraph 10 states a conclusion of law; thus, no response is required. 11. PARTIES 11. Upon information and belief, admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Answering paragraph 13, BC states that the home page of BC’s website includes references to BC’s mission and history. 14. Paragraph 14 states a conclusion of law; thus, no response is required. 15. Admitted that the individuals listed are employed by BC. Answering ?lrther, BC states that President William Leahy is President of BC; there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty Committee; Provost Quigley has the authority to appoint and reappoint faculty, and he advises the President on promotion, tenure, and appointment of faculty members to chairs; Dean Boynton is the Dean of CSOM and acted as Chair of Nikolova’s tenure committees; and Senior Associate Dean of Faculty Sadka also serves as chair of CSOM’s Finance Department. 16. Admitted only that BC’s University Statutes contain operating policies of BC, including policies that apply to committees involved in promotion and tenure review. 111. FACTS Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 A. The Contract between Boston College and Nikolova 17. Admitted that BC extended a written offer of employment to Nikolova in October 2013. The offer letter speaks for itself. 18. Admitted that BC and Nikolova entered into a contract in April 2014 pursuant to which Nikolova was appointed as a tenure-track Assistant Professor. As to the remaining allegations, no answer is required because the contract speaks for itself. 19. No answer is required because the contract speaks for itself 20. No answer is required because the contract speaks for itself 21. BC denies that Nikolova exhibited all of the qualities BC sought among its tenured faculty and denies that she performed under the contract. 22. No answer is required because the contract speaks for itself 23. Admitted only that BC has University Statutes with many provisions; the Statutes speak for themselves. Paragraph 23 is otherwise denied. 24. Denied. Answering further, BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to what Nikolova “expected,” and denies paragraph 24 insofar as it implies that BC failed to abide by the University Statutes. 25. Admitted only that Nikolova was reappointed as an Assistant Professor in 2016, 2018, and 2020. Answering ?lrther, BC denies that the standards for reappointment as an Assistant Professor are the same as the standards for tenure and promotion decisions. 26. Denied that BC made “promises” to Nikolova beyond any contractual obligations it had to Nikolova or that BC’s adherence to statutes and policies constituted contractual promises. Answering further, denied insofar as paragraph 26 implies that BC failed to adhere to any statutes or policies concerning discrimination or retaliation with respect to Nikolova. Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 B. Marketing as an academic discipline 27-29. Paragraphs 27-29 do not contain any factual allegations that BC did, or failed to do, anything with respect to Nikolova. Paragraphs 27-29 also contain matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Accordingly, no answer is required. 30. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty Committee, and states that the Department Chair’s “Summary of Department Discussion” speaks for itself. 3l . Denied. C. BC’s high praise for Nikolova’s research before she became a mother 32. BC admits that Dean Boynton and Senior Associate Dean Sadka annually review the performance of all faculty members in connection with the annual salary review. Answering ?lrther, BC states that CSOM assigns mentors to all assistant professors and newly hired non- tenure track faculty to provide feedback in connection with the performance of their duties as faculty members. BC denies that Dean Boynton and Associate Dean Sadka pay “particular attention to progress toward tenure.” 33. Answering paragraph 33, BC states that CSOM assigns mentors to all assistant professors and newly hired non-tenure track faculty. 34. Admitted, with the exception that mentors do not guide faculty members to tenure, feedback may or may not be written, and CSOM explicitly advises mentors that mentoring reports “should NOT explicitly discuss progress towards tenure.” 35. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to ways in which junior faculty “rely” on annual mentoring reports. 36. Denied. Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 1. 2014 37. Answering paragraph 37, BC states that Department Chair Lemon wrote a 2014 report on Nikolova, some of which is quoted in paragraph 37. Answering further, BC states that Professor Lemon encouraged Nikolova “to begin thinking about a single-authored project” and stressed the importance of generating “evidence of independent scholarship, in addition to high quality articles with impact.” 2. 2015 38. Answering paragraph 38, BC states that Professor Tehranian nominated Nikolova for the Coughlin Assistant Professorship, and states that his letter speaks for itself. 39. Answering paragraph 39, BC states that Department Chair Lemon recommended Nikolova for the Coughlin Assistant Professorship, and states that her letter speaks for itself. 40. Answering paragraph 40, BC states that Dean Boynton wrote to Provost Quigley in support of Nikolova receiving the Coughlin Assistant Professorship, and states that his letter speaks for itself. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Provost Quigley’s letter to President Leahy speaks for itself, and BC admits that President Leahy approved the appointment of Nikolova to the Coughlin Assistant Professorship. 4l . Admitted. 42. Answering paragraph 42, BC states that its publications have made statements concerning endowed professorships; those statements speak for themselves. 43. Answering paragraph 43, BC states that Provost Quigley wrote a letter to Nikolova on or about October 23, 2015, and states that the letter speaks for itself. 44. Answering paragraph 44, BC states that Dean Boynton wrote a letter to Nikolova on or about October 27, 2015, and states that the letter speaks for itself. Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 3. 2016 45. Answering the ?rst sentence of paragraph 45, BC states that Nikolova engaged in ?lrther research in 2016, but denies her characterization of it. Answering the remainder of paragraph 45, BC states that Professor Brasel wrote a letter to Nikolova, and BC states that the letter speaks for itself. 4. 2017-F0urth Year Tenure Review 46. Denied. Answering further, BC states that the Fourth Year Review is not a “Tenure Review” as Nikolova identi?es the review in her Complaint; on November 10, 2017 Nikolova’s Department Chair sent to Nikolova a cover letter with his comments on the October 15, 2017, Fourth Year Review Committee Report, which he attached to his cover letter. 47. Answering paragraph 47, BC states that the Fourth Year Review is a review of an assistant professor’s research, teaching, and service. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the characterization in paragraph 47 of the Fourth Year Review. 48. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no “Fourth Year Tenure Review” and states that the Fourth Year Review is evaluative. 49. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no “Fourth Year Tenure Review Committee,” and ?lrther states that Fourth Year Review Committees are instructed that the review is “not a tenure review.” 50. Answering paragraph 50, BC states that Nikolova’s Department Chair provided Nikolova with a cover letter dated November 10, 2017, which attached the Fourth Year Review Committee’s Report dated October 15, 2017. Answering further, BC states that the Report contains the language quoted in paragraph 50. The remaining allegations in paragraph 50 are denied. Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 51. Answering paragraph 51, BC states that the Fourth Year Review Committee’s Report contains the language quoted in paragraph 51. The remaining allegations in paragraph 51 are denied. 52. Answering paragraph 52, BC states that the Fourth Year Review Committee encouraged Nikolova to take the actions described in paragraph 52. 53. Answering paragraph 53, BC states that Department Chair Brasel wrote to Nikolova on or about November 10, 2017. Among other matters, Department Chair Brasel informed Nikolova that she must develop a stronger argument that she was the key driver of her research separate from her advisory committee and that she must demonstrate that she was engaged in independent scholarship, which he informed Nikolova was a “key theme” at CSOM. 54. Answering paragraph 54, BC states that Department Chair Brasel wrote to Nikolova on or about November 10, 2017, and BC states that the letter contained the comments described in the answer to paragraph 53. 55. Answering paragraph 55, BC states that Associate Professor Hagvedt wrote a report on Nikolova’s research for 2017-2018; the report speaks for itself. 56. Answering paragraph 56, BC states that Associate Professor Hagvedt wrote a report on Nikolova’s research for 2018; the report speaks for itself. D. Nikolova begins having children and taking maternity leave 57. Answering paragraph 57, BC denies that Nikolova had distinguished herself as one of the top marketing scholars in her cohort, and BC denies that Nikolova had exceeded every performance standard BC had set for her. Answering ?lrther, BC has insuf?cient knowledge and information to respond to the remaining allegation in paragraph 57. 58. Upon information and belief, admitted. Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 59. Admitted. 60. Answering paragraph 60, BC states that sometime in Spring 2020, during COVID, Nikolova walked into Dean Boynton’s of?ce, unannounced, said Hello, and that Dean Boynton, surprised Nikolova was there, said, in substance, “I’m surprised to see you” and “I didn’t know you were back yet.” 61. Upon information and belief, admitted. 62. Upon information and belief, admitted. 63. Upon information and belief, admitted. 64. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 64. E. Signi?cance of publication in top Marketing Journals 65. Denied. Answering further, BC states that publication of research results in peer- refereed journals can be an indication of progress in research. 66-74. Answering paragraph 66 through 74, BC states that the statements in paragraphs 66-74 make no allegations against Boston College. Answering further, BC states that the statements are matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Accordingly, BC is unable to respond. Answering ?lrther, BC states that the Journal of Marketing Research and the Journal of Consumer Psychology are highly regarded Marketing journals, the peer- reView process at highly regarded Marketing journals is, ideally, rigorous, and that the descriptions in paragraphs 73 and 74 re?ect ideal procedures and results in the publication of research papers. F. Nikolova applies for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 75. Answering paragraph 75, BC states that on or about August 13, 2021, Nikolova applied for promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure and included a dossier. BC denies the remaining allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 75. 76. Answering paragraph 76, BC states that Nikolova’s dossier speaks for itself. 77. Answering paragraph 77, BC states that BC’s Promotion and Tenure Procedures are, in part, in writing and those writings speak for themselves. 78. Answering paragraph 78, BC states that BC’s University Statutes speak for themselves. 79. Denied. 80. Answering paragraph 80, BC states that none of the members of the PTC in academic year 2021-22 were members of the Marketing Department. At least one member of the PTC had published multiple articles in a peer-reviewed Marketing journal. 81. Answering paragraph 81, BC states that all members of the PTC had the ability to determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research. 82. Answering paragraph 82, BC states that all members of the PTC had the ability to determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research. Answering further, BC states that at least one PTC member had published multiple articles in a peer-reviewed Marketing journal. 83. Answering paragraph 83, BC states that all members of the PTC had the ability to determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research. 84. Answering paragraph 84, BC states that Professor Chod was a member of the Business Analytics Department, and that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those 10 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Chod is available on the BC website. 85. Answering paragraph 85, BC states that Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning Judith Gordon was chair of the Management and Organization Department, and BC states that her areas of knowledge and expertise include those stated. Answering further, BC states that information concerning Professor Gordon is available on the BC website. 86. Answering paragraph 86, BC states that Professor Pratt was a member of the Management and Organization Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Prof. Pratt has published multiple articles in a peer-reviewed Marketing journal. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Pratt is available on the BC website. 87. Answering paragraph 87, BC states that Professor Pontiff was a member of the Finance Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Pontiff is available on the BC website. 88. Answering paragraph 88, BC states that Professor Bradshaw was a member of the Accounting Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Bradshaw is available on the BC website. 89. Answering paragraph 89, BC states that Professor Strahan was a member of the Finance Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include those stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that information concerning Professor Strahan is available on the BC website. 11 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 90. Answering paragraph 90, BC states that Senior Associate Dean Sadka was chair of the Finance Department, and BC states that his areas of knowledge and expertise include “Empirical Asset Pricing,” “Liquidity in Capital Markets,” and “Behavioral Finance.” Answering further, BC states that information concerning Senior Associate Dean Sadka is available on the BC website. 91. Answering paragraph 91, BC states that Dean Boynton conducts research on a variety of topics, including strategy, high performing teams, managing information technology resources, organizational learning and transformation, innovation, and leadership. His research has appeared in books, leading academic journals, and practitioner publications spanning three decades. He has applied his research in work assisting senior executives and consulting with businesses in the United States and abroad. 92. Denied. Answering ?lrther, BC states that all PTC members had the ability to determine the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research. G. CSOM’s Tenured Faculty Committee votes 9-0 that Nikolova be promoted with tenure 93. Denied. 94. Denied. 95. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty Committee and that nine tenured members of the Marketing Department met on August 24, 2021, and voted in favor of promotion with tenure. 96. Answering paragraph 96, BC states that nine tenured members of the Marketing Department voted in favor of promotion with tenure, and the Department Chair provided a “Summary of Department Discussion” to the PTC; the summary speaks for itself. 12 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 97. Answering paragraph 97, BC states that the Department Chair provided a “Summary of Department Discussion” to the PTC; the summary speaks for itself. 98. Upon information and belief, admitted. G. External letter writers strongly support Nikolova’s tenure application 99. Denied. 100. Answering paragraph 100, BC states that BC sent letters to external reviewers. The letters speak for themselves. 101. Answering paragraph 101, BC states that on or about August 20, 2021, Professor Goldsmith wrote a letter addressed to Dean Boynton; the letter speaks for itself. 102. Answering paragraph 102, BC states that on or about September 22, 2021, Professor Reczek wrote a letter addressed to the members of the PTC; the letter speaks for itself. 103. Answering paragraph 103, BC states that on or about August 16, 2021, Professor Lamberton wrote an unsolicited letter addressed to the Tenure and Promotion Committee; the letter speaks for itself. H. BC rejects Nikolova’s tenure application and hides its reasons 104. Answering paragraph 104, BC states that the PTC unanimously voted not to recommend Nikolova for promotion with tenure. The remaining allegations are denied. 105. Answering paragraph 105, BC states that on or about February 24, 2022, President Leahy advised Nikolova that he was denying Nikolova’s application for promotion with tenure by letter; the letter speaks for itself. The remaining allegations are denied. 106. Answering paragraph 106, BC states that on or about February 24, 2022, President Leahy advised Nikolova that he was denying Nikolova’s application for promotion with tenure by letter; the letter speaks for itself 13 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 107. Answering the ?rst sentence of paragraph 107, BC states that Nikolova asked for a written statement of reasons; answering ?lrther, BC lacks knowledge or information as to whether Nikolova was “stunned.” Answering the second sentence, BC states that the University Statutes speak for themselves. 108. Answering paragraph 108, BC states that on or about March 4, 2022, Provost and Dean of Faculties David Quigley wrote a letter to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself. 109. Answering the ?rst sentence of paragraph 109, BC states that the University Statutes speak for themselves. The remaining allegations are denied. 110. The ?rst sentence is admitted. The remaining allegations are denied. 111. Denied. 112. Denied. 113. Answering paragraph 113, BC states that BC’s concerns about the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research were genuine; the remaining allegations are denied. 114. Answering paragraph 114, BC states that BC’s concerns about the independence, quality, and impact of Nikolova’s research were genuine; the remaining allegations are denied. 115. Denied. 116. The ?rst sentence is admitted. The remaining allegations in paragraph 116 are denied, except that BC admits that Ordabayeva was awarded promotion with tenure. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table following paragraph 116. 117. Answering paragraph 117, BC states that the allegations present a misleading and inaccurate account of Ordabayeva’s research. Answering further, BC states that BC determined that Ordabayeva had met the criteria for promotion with tenure, whereas Nikolova had not. 14 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 118. Answering paragraph 118, BC states that in March 2022, Dr. Lamberton contacted President Leahy; the remaining allegations are denied. 119. Answering paragraph 119, BC states that Dr. Lamberton’s email to President Leahy speaks for itself. 120. Answering paragraph 120, BC states that Dr. Lamberton’s email to President Leahy speaks for itself. 121. Upon information and belief, admitted. 122. Answering paragraph 122, BC states that on or about March 2022, Nikolova met with Dean Boynton, Provost Quigley, and also with President Leahy. The remaining allegations are denied. 123. Denied as stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that among other matters discussed, Nikolova indicated that she had a strong commitment to her family, stated that she wished to remain at BC, and thanked President Leahy for meeting and listening to her. Answering further, BC states that following their meeting Nikolova wrote an email to President Leahy, in which she thanked President Leahy for his “kindness, thoughtfulness, care and encouragemen .” 124. Denied. I. Nikolova appeals to the Faculty Review Panel 125. Answering paragraph 125, BC states that on or about April 28, 2022, Nikolova appealed to the Faculty Review Panel by letter; the letter speaks for itself. 126-133. Answering paragraphs 126-133, BC states that the FRP issued a report on or about June 13, 2022; BC states that the report speaks for itself. Answering further, BC states that it denies the accuracy of some of the FRP’s ?ndings. 15 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 134. Denied. 135. Denied. 136. Denied. J. Nikolova continues to oppose BC’s discrimination based on her sex, pregnancy, and maternity 137. Answering paragraph 137, BC states that Nikolova wrote to BC’s general counsel on or about June 21, 2022; answering ?lrther, BC states that the email speaks for itself. 138. Answering paragraph 138, BC states that Nikolova wrote to BC’s general counsel on or about July 6, 2022; answering further, BC states that the email speaks for itself. K. President Leahy overrules the FRP and does not say why 139. Answering paragraph 139, President Leahy received materials from the tenured members of the Marketing Department, unsolicited letters, and the report of the Faculty Review Panel. The remaining allegations in paragraph 139 are denied. 140. Answering paragraph 140, BC states that President Leahy wrote to Nikolova on or about July 6, 2022; the letter speaks for itself. Answering ?lrther, BC states that President Leahy declined to follow the recommendation of the FRP. 141. Denied. 142. Denied. L. Nikolova ?les a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and MCAD alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, and maternity. 143. Answering paragraph 143, BC states that in or about August 2022, Nikolova ?led a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and MCAD; the charge speaks for itself. The remaining allegations are denied. Answering further, BC states that Dean Boynton signed BC’s response to Nikolova’s charge. 16 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 M. Nikolova applies for promotion with tenure a second time, supplementing her already superlative dossier with her accomplishments from the past year, showing several more papers published in the top Marketing Journals, several additional, prestigious Marketing awards and honors which recognized the quality and importance of her research, several more presentations made at top Marketing conferences, and several additional invited talks at other Universities 144. Admitted. 145. Answering paragraph 145, BC states that on or about August 15, 2022 Nikolova emailed Dean Boynton; the email and attached document speak for themselves. 146. Answering paragraph 146, BC states that Professor and Marketing Department Chair Kathleen Seiders sat on the PTC in 2022-2023 but not 2021-2022, and Professor Pratt was not on the PTC in 2022-2023. Answering further, BC states that Prof. Seiders was a tenured faculty member in 2021-2022 and voted in favor of promotion with tenure in 2021-2022. Answering ?lrther, BC states that in 2022-2023 Prof. Seiders was a member of the PTC that voted unanimously not to recommend promotion with tenure. 147. Answering paragraph 147, BC states that on or about August 15, 2022 Nikolova submitted a dossier to Dean Boynton via email; the dossier speaks for itself. 148. Denied. 149. Answering the first three sentences of paragraph 149, BC states that Nikolova received the Society for Consumer Research Early Career Award, joined the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Consumer Research, and became the Treasurer-in—Trainingof the Association for Consumer Research. The fourth sentence of paragraph 149 makes no allegation against BC. Answering the ?fth sentence of paragraph 149, BC states that the ACR-AMA grant was awarded to several co-authors in the amount of $2,500, and the CBS grants—which are 17 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 deemed “small” on the grant webpage—were awarded twice in 2022, one of which was to co- authors. 150. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 150. Answering further, BC states that the degree to which the conferences are “prestigious” is a matter of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree. 151. Answering paragraph 151, BC states that on or about October 18, 2022 Nikolova met with Professor Seiders and Vice Provost of Faculties Billy Soo. Otherwise denied. 152. Answering paragraph 152, BC states that on or about October 18, 2022 Nikolova met with Professor Seiders and Vice Provost of Faculties Billy Soo. Otherwise denied. 153. Answering paragraph 153, BC states that in or about early November 2022, Nikolova supplemented her dossier with a letter from Jeffery Inman, PhD; the letter speaks for itself. 154. Denied. Answering further, BC states that there is no CSOM Tenured Faculty Committee and that seven members of the Marketing Department met on September 1, 2022 and voted in favor of promotion with tenure. 155. Answering paragraph 155, BC states that external reviewers wrote letters that speak for themselves. 156. Answering paragraph 156, BC states that on or about February 24, 2023, President Leahy wrote a letter addressed to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself. 157. Answering paragraph 157, BC states that on or about February 24, 2023, President Leahy wrote a letter addressed to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself. 158. Answering paragraph 158, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met with Dean Boynton and Professor Sadka. Answering the second sentence, BC states that Dean 18 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 Boynton and Senior Associate Dean Sadka informed Nikolova that there were concerns about the quality, independence, and impact of her research. 159. Answering paragraph 159, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met with Dean Boynton and Professor Sadka. The remaining allegations are denied. 160. Answering paragraph 160, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met with Provost Quigley. The remaining allegations are denied. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Provost Quigley, among other matters, stated that the PTC discussed its concerns about the quality, independence, and impact of Nikolova’s research and was concerned about Nikolova’s overreliance on papers with multiple authors and senior advisors. 161. Answering paragraph 161, BC states that in or about March 2023, Nikolova met with President Leahy. The remaining allegations are denied. 162. Answering paragraph 162, BC states that on or about March 6, 2023, Provost Quigley wrote a letter to Nikolova; the letter speaks for itself. 163. Answering paragraph 163, BC states that on or about March 20, 2023, Nikolova ?led an amended Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and MCAD; the amended charge speaks for itself. 164. Answering paragraph 164, BC states that on or about April 10, 2023, Nikolova submitted an appeal to the Faculty Review Panel, with a copy to President Leahy; the appeal speaks for itself. 165. Answering paragraph 165, BC states that on or about April 10, 2023, Nikolova submitted an appeal to the Faculty Review Panel; the appeal speaks for itself. Answering further, BC denies that President Leahy and Dean Boynton made any gender-stereotyped statements. 166. Upon information and belief, admitted. 19 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 167. Answering paragraph 167, BC states that on or about May 31, 2023, the FRP wrote a letter addressed to President Leahy; the letter speaks for itself. 168. Admitted. 169. Denied. Answering further, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table following paragraph 169. 170. Denied. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table following paragraph 170. 171. Denied. Answering ?lrther, BC denies the accuracy of the statistics in the table following paragraph 171 . 172. Answering paragraph 172, BC states that the statements about unidenti?ed (“several”) CSOM Faculty and other statements are ambiguous; accordingly, BC is unable to respond. 173. Denied. Answering further, BC denies that it forced Nikolova to leave BC in 2023. 174. Denied. Answering further, BC states that as of the time that Nikolova reapplied for tenure in August 2022, her dossier indicated that she had twelve articles published with co- authors and one solo-authored forthcoming article. 175. Admitted that the ten articles referred to in paragraph 175 were published in FT50 journals, with the exception that they were all co-authored. 176. Answering paragraph 176, BC states that the statements about unidenti?ed publications are ambiguous; accordingly, BC is unable to respond. 20 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 177. Answering paragraph 177, BC states that the statements are ambiguous (unidenti?ed peers, “54” peers, and “stronger publication record”); accordingly, BC is unable to respond. 178. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information as to whether Nikolova’s dissertation paper was given the awards referenced in paragraph 178; accordingly, BC is unable to respond. Answering ?lrther, BC states that Nikolova’s dissertation “Individual and Social Dynamics of Self Control” contains three chapters, only one of which mentions “dyads” or “dyadic decision making.” 179. Admitted, with the exception that the paper was co-authored with Nikolova’s senior colleague, Gergana Nenkov, who received promotion with tenure from BC in 2012. 180. Answering paragraph 180, BC states that Nikolova and thirty-?ve other individuals received the Marketing Science Institute Young Scholar Award in 2019. Answering further, BC states that the degree to which the award is “prestigious” is a matter of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree. Accordingly, BC is unable to respond. 181. Answering paragraph 181, BC states that in 2015 Nikolova was awarded the Diane Harkins Coughlin and Christopher J. Coughlin Sesquicentennial Assistant Professorship at CSOM. Answering ?lrther, BC states that the position may only be awarded to an assistant professor. 182. Admitted, with the exception that these three publications were with co-authors. 183. Denied as stated. Answering ?lrther, BC states that in return for Nikolova’s helping to design ?eld studies and doing other work, BC was to receive no funds. 184. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 184. 21 Date Filed 2/1/2024 5:20 PM Superior Court Suffolk - Docket Number 2384CVO2425 185. Answering paragraph 185, BC states that the statements are ambiguous and are matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Accordingly, BC is unable to respond. 186. Answering paragraph 186, BC states that the statements are ambiguous and are matters of opinion as to which some scholars may disagree, in part. Answering ?lrther, BC lacks knowledge or information as to where Nikolova’s “papers are taught.” Accordingly, BC is unable to respond. 187. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 187. Answering further, BC states that as of the time that Nikolova reapplied for tenure in August 2022, her dossier indicated that she had presented at, or planned to present at, forty-six conferences. Answering further, BC is unable to respond to whether Nikolova’s research was “featured” at the conferences. 188. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 188. 189. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 189. The statements are also ambiguous. 190. BC lacks suf?cient knowledge or information to respond to paragraph 190. The statements are also ambiguous. 191.