Upholding Tenure Decisions at the
University of Cincinnati and St. Xavier University in Chicago

At the University of Cincinnati, a fashion design faculty member who was told she was perceived as “too French” recently lost her appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit claiming she was denied tenure based on her national origin. The Sixth Circuit found that Assistant Professor Nathalie Doucet “misconstrues the rule of the court” in her Title VII case alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation, and affirmed summary judgment obtained on behalf of Doucet’s former employer, the University of Cincinnati.

In the fall of 2001, Doucet was given a three-year term, with contract renewal contingent on her successful completion of the University of Cincinnati’s reappointment, promotion and tenure process. During Doucet’s first and second years of teaching in UC’s School of Design, administrators were made aware of a number of student complaints about Doucet, including one that claimed Doucet was “very French and very anti-American.” In 2002, UC’s School of Design Director told Doucet that her colleagues perceived her as “too French” and, in 2003, the Dean of the School of Design rejected Doucet’s plans for an international fashion competition because it was not “the way American’s do it.”

When Doucet was denied reappointment, she filed a grievance under UC’s internal review process. Doucet claimed she did not receive adequate guidance and mentorship, that her course load was unreasonably demanding and that she was assigned to teach a computer drafting course that she was unqualified to teach. After Doucet exhausted her options for administrative review, she filed suit in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio.

In affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of UC, the Sixth Circuit found that Doucet was unable to point to a similarly situated faculty member who was renewed when she was not. The Sixth Circuit also found that UC’s proffered reasons for not renewing Doucet’s contract, namely her teaching, was legitimate and non-discriminatory. The Sixth Circuit found that “Doucet’s teaching was cited as a reason for denying reappointment at every level” of the administrative process. “The court does not sit as a super-tenure committee,” Judge Gibbons wrote, “substituting its judgment for that of UC as to whether Doucet should have been reappointed.”

At St. Xavier University in Chicago, Associate Professor Sharon Adelman-Reyes filed suit against St. Xavier, alleging she was denied tenure because of her Jewish faith in violation of Title VII. The Seventh Circuit found that her evidence to be no more than “stray remarks” that failed to support a finding of religious discrimination.

Adelman-Reyes, who was hired in 1998, had been an Associate Professor in the School of Education since 2003. She alleged that the Dean of the School of Education, Beverly Gulley, was overheard calling her a “liberal union-oriented Jew” and had complained about Adelman-Reyes missing school events because of Jewish holidays. Even though the School of Education’s faculty committee approved Adelman-Reyes for tenure, Gulley did not.

Both recommendations, along with Adelman-Reyes’s dossier, were considered by the University’s tenure committee which ultimately agreed with Gulley and declined to recommend tenure. When Adelman-Reyes filed a grievance with the University, she alleged that Gulley discriminated against her for a number of reasons, but none included religious discrimination. The faculty grievance committee voted 2-1 to uphold the denial of tenure, and the University President upheld the decision.

In affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit focused solely on the issue of pretext. Gulley claimed her reasons for recommending against tenure were Adelman-Reyes’s lack of service on the School of Education committees and several negative comments by students. Adelman-Reyes argued those reasons were false, that Gulley’s comments about her being a “liberal union-oriented Jew” and “missed University events because of Jewish holidays,” revealed Gulley’s true motivation for not recommending her for tenure.

The Seventh Circuit easily dismissed of the first comment – that Adelman-Reyes was a “liberal union-oriented Jew” – finding it to be a “stray remark … neither proximate nor related to” Adelman-Reyes’s tenure determination. The Seventh Circuit also dismissed the second remark – regarding Jewish holidays conflicting with school functions – finding that, although more relevant to the tenure determination, it was “not enough to establish pretext [in] a challenge to a university tenure decision.” “This is especially so,” the Seventh Circuit reasoned, “in light of Adelman-Reyes’s failure to even mention religious discrimination in her formal grievance filed with the University.”

Writing for a unanimous panel, and citing Seventh Circuit precedent, Judge Easterbrook noted that, when it comes to the “nuanced nature” of tenure decisions, “we generally do not second guess the expert decisions of faculty committees.” More importantly, the Seventh Circuit found that “because tenure decisions typically involve numerous layers of review by independent and University-wide committees, the causal connection between any possible discriminatory motive of a subordinate participant in the tenure process and the ultimate decision is weak or nonexistent.”

Please contact Scott James Preston or another member of Ice Miller's Labor and Employment Practice Group with any questions relating to these tenure decisions. Scott is of counsel in the Firm's Labor and Employment Practice Group focusing on employment discrimination, wrongful termination and other employment-related litigation. You can reach Scott at scott.preston@icemiller.com.

Jeffrey Lewis is a Partner in Ice Miller's Municipal Finance Practice Group. Jeff's primary practice concentrations are in higher education law and in tax-exempt finance and securities law, with a focus on transactions for colleges, universities, museums, and other educational or cultural institutions.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice.  The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.