Xunxian Liu v. Georgetown University

── Xunxian Liu v. Georgetown University ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 25-7002 September Term, 2025 FILED ON: MAY 12, 2026 XUNXIAN LIU, APPELLANT v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-00157) Before: MILLETT, WILKINS, and GARCIA, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT The cause came to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs of the parties. The panel has accorded these issues full consideration and decided that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia be AFFIRMED. * * * Dr. Xunxian Liu, a biomedical researcher formerly employed by Georgetown University (the “University”), brought an action against the University alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), as well as related constitutional claims arising from his employment in Dr. Alexander Kroemer’s laboratory. The District Court granted the University’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all the claims against the University. Dr. Liu filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. At the judgment on the pleadings stage, we must view the allegations in the light most  2 favorable to Dr. Liu as the non-moving party, granting him all reasonable inferences. See Schuchart v. La Taberna Del Alabardero, Inc., 365 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir. 2004). We hold that the District Court erred in conducting its comparator analysis for the claims of national-origin discrimination when it held Dr. Liu to the stricter standard that applies at the summary-judgment stage, rather than the pleading standard that applies at the motion-to-dismiss stage. See Joyner v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, 140 F.4th 523, 530–31 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Nonetheless, we conclude that, applying the proper standard, Dr. Liu has failed to state a claim that the University unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against him based on his national origin. Dr. Liu’s remaining claims also fail for reasons of inadequate pleading, lack of exhaustion, or lack of redressability. We therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of all Dr. Liu’s claims. We further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Liu’s motion for reconsideration. I. A. The Court draws the following facts from Dr. Liu’s Second Amended Complaint, which are accepted as true for purposes of this appeal. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This Court will also consider documents that are referred to in the Complaint and his filings as “integral” to Plaintiff’s claims. See Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 965 (D.C. Cir. 2004)); see, e.g., Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We have previously held that a district court errs in failing to consider a pro se litigant’s complaint “in light of” all filings, including filings responsive to a motion to dismiss.”) (internal cita