You can go to our Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:

Text to Search For:
Boolean: AND OR Case Insensitive Sensitive

Case Updates:

• TRACEY A. LEE VS. UCSF COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER
  
• PAT WASHINGTON VS. SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
  
• SINGLETON VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
  
• LINDA SCHILCHER VS. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE MIDDLE EAST STUDIES PROGRAM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS ET AL.
  
• GAIL M. GOTTFRIED VS. OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ET AL.: SETTLEMENT
  
  TRACEY A. LEE VS. UCSF COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER
  Tracey A. Lee´s civil case against the UCSF Cancer Center is still pending in San Francisco´s Federal District Court. Judge Martin J. Jenkins conducted a Case Management Conference on September 24, 2002 to move this expected 10-day jury trial from October 2002 to May 12, 2003.
  
  Lee continues in her efforts to expand this civil case into a class-action suit, since her investigations have already revealed that the inequitable recruitment packages offered to females in the UCSF Cancer Center are consistent with the "brutal, sexist system" of the UCSF School of Medicine that continues to deny gender equity for female faculty, academic, and staff employees.
  
  This whistleblower documented these inequities by formally reporting her findings of half a million dollars in falsified invoices used by the UCSF Cancer Center to systematically award better hiring packages to male recruits from endowed cancer funds.
  
  Lee remains diligent in her efforts to secure legal counsel for fair presentation of this case at the federal level. She wants to ensure that private and public donors are made fully aware of the misappropriation and mismanagement of their cash donations for cancer research. Their funds were used to discriminate against women by providing disparate recruitment packages for male recruits, instead of being distributed equitably to fund breast and other cancer research.
  
  Please contact Lee if you have also suffered any discrimination or retaliation while working in the UCS School of Medicine.
  
  PAT WASHINGTON VS. SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
  Pat Washington, the only Black tenure-track faculty member hired in the 30-year history of SDSU´s Women´s Studies Department, has been denied tenure at San Diego State University. During her six years in Women´s Studies, Washington´s progress toward tenure and promotion was considered satisfactory, until she complained of a racially hostile work environment in May 2000 In November 2000, her evaluations plummeted. However, a White colleague with a teaching, publication, and service record that was equivalent or weaker than Washington´s was tenured in Women´s Studies in 2001. In May 2001, a scant six months before Washington´s tenure application was due, the department radically altered its tenure requirements, effectively reversing many directives given in prior evaluations. Her case goes to arbitration in October 2003, five months after her scheduled termination. The case is supported by the Academic Discrimination Advisory Board of the National Women´s Studies Association, San Diego Branch NAACP, California Chapter of the National Organization of Women, and the Lambda Letters Project. Details about Washington´s professional accomplishments can be found on her SDSU faculty home page. She can be contacted regarding her case at themorgangirl@aol.com.
  
  SINGLETON VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
  This class action lawsuit was filed in 1997 by six plaintiffs charging gender discrimination in pay and promotion for women who work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The court has certified the class as all women in the administrative, scientific, technical, and secretarial classifications who were employed at LLNL on February 29, 1997. In August attorneys for the Regents filed a Motion to Decertify the Class (one of many motions filed by LLNL´s attorneys that have caused delays and added to the legal costs in the case). Judge Sabraw has denied the motion and is expected to issue an Order related to class structure and trial structure by the end of 2002.
  
  Although LLNL´s attorneys have filed summary judgments against several individual plaintiffs in the case, most of them have been denied by the court. However, in the judgment brought against Mary Singleton in August 2002, Judge Sabraw granted the motion against Mary based on the fact that she had signed a release and waiver of claims when she accepted the VSIP package during a downsizing program at LLNL in 1996. This is a personal disappointment for Mary who has been involved since 1976 in salary and promotion issues for women at the Laboratory. However, it does not affect the strength of the case or the continuation of the lawsuit. Attorneys for the plaintiffs plan to file a notice of appeal on Mary´s behalf.
  
  For the past four years attorneys for both sides have been taking depositions and working with expert witnesses in preparation for trial, which is expected to be rescheduled for August 2003. The discovery process has been completed. In the meantime there have been several sessions spent in mediation between the plaintiffs, LLNL, and their attorneys, the substance of which is confidential at this point.
  
  The four legal firms representing the plaintiffs in the case are: The Sturdevant Law Firm; Schneider & Wallace; Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer; and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.
  
  LINDA SCHILCHER VS. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE MIDDLE EAST STUDIES PROGRAM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS ET AL.
  The July 15, 2002. trial date was pushed back to February18, 2003 as a necessary result of the university´s lawyers succeeding in obtaining a 40-day extension of discovery. The Federal Court system´s required Settlement Conference with a Settlement Judge present occurred as scheduled, but the University´s Offer was unreasonable. The judge did not expect Schilcher to accept it, and she did not. She is now waiting for the trial judge to rule on the University´s motion to dismiss over 100 pages. That is the last hurdle before going to trial in February.
  
  All three women involved in the Middle East Studies Program at the University of Arkansas in the years 1995-98 sought psychiatric treatment as a result of their experiences in the Program. One deponee reported a long list of abusive and sexist names used on a regular basis by one of the defendants to refer to Schilcher.
  
  GAIL M. GOTTFRIED VS. OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ET AL.: SETTLEMENT
  Gail Gottfried´s case reached a settlement over the summer. Gail says, "I´m so grateful for WAGE and all the support that you have provided and hope I can offer the same sorts of support to others, within the constraints of confidentiality."
  
  -wage@wage.org-