You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Case Updates
Charlene McMahon vs. Carroll college
This case (see
Fall 2003, and
SpringÐFall 2004
Newsletters) began in 2002 when four tenure-track professors were refused promotion to tenure -
apparently because the college was trying to reduce the number of tenured positions. One of these
faculty members was Charlene McMahon, whose two male colleagues in chemistry were given tenure.
She then filed suit, separately from the other three as they did not have gender discrimination as part of
their cases. Those three have settled - for a minimal financial settlement. As a result of this settlement,
the American Association of University Professors, which had originally supported the four, has denied
further support to McMahon.
Later McMahon applied for the non-tenured position that was created in place of her former
position. Although she was the best candidate, she was not hired. This led to a second legal case for
retaliation. The EEOC recently ruled in McMahon´s favor on this case, finding that Provost
Lynne Bernier retaliated against her. The EEOC has recommended she receive the position (now
untenured), back pay, attorneys´ fees for this part of her case, and that Carroll College´s
administration undergo training to avoid future retaliation, and post a notice stating the results of this
finding. Carroll has refused to comply. McMahon´s original discrimination case continues.
Discovery is due to finish in June 2005.
Meanwhile, McMahon, who is supported by the American Association of University Women
(AAUW) Legal Advocacy Fund, has been giving talks at AAUW branch meetings and business and
professional women´s groups. She will speak at the AAUW national meeting in Washington,
DC.
The college´s effort to replace tenured positions by non-tenured ones has triggered
faculty efforts to unionize, and these continue. The Regional Labor Relations Board (LRB) allowed the
faculty to vote on unionization in February 2005. Carroll College appealed the legitimacy of the vote to
the National LRB, which has accepted the position of the Regional LRB that the faculty has the right to
unionize. Also, at the request of the college, the NLRB has asked both sides to submit briefs regarding
the extent to which the college is tied to the Presbyterian Church, as a religious institution can not be
forced to unionize. If the NRLB decides Carroll is not a religious institution the votes will be counted.
Until then, the ballots are sealed.
Graciela Chichilnisky vs. Columbia University
This suit grew out of the 1996 breach of the settlement of a suit brought by Chichilnisky in
1991 and settled in 1995 (see
Fall 2003, and
Spring-Fall 2004
Newsletters). After almost finishing a new settlement in December 2003, Columbia changed lawyers
and set out on an aggressive course, countersuing Chichilnisky and refusing to talk about a settlement
unless she leaves the university. Chichilnisky has always desired settlement.
This is an unusual case because Chichilnisky has been a full professor since 1980, and
outstanding in her field of mathematical economics. We often think that women with the security of
tenure are not treated in the way Chichilnisky has been treated - her research moneys
"frozen," her research center´s computers pulled out of offices and put into halls, a
substantial part of her compensation unpaid, her courses removed, her students´
accomplishments unacknowledged, insulted by her department chair who refuses to meet with her ...
We are familiar with women being paid only a fraction of what comparable men are paid, and
that is a theme in Chichilnisky´s case. A faculty committee found in 1985 that this problem
existed but nothing was done to correct it, motivating the first suit. Currently Chichilnisky´s
salary is only two thirds of that of the men in her department.
Economics Professor Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel recipient, will be Chichilnisky´s expert
witness in court on her economics work. Professor of Psychology Laurie Rudman will be her expert
witness on gender disparities. Professor of Statistics Mark Killingsworth will be the expert on the
statistics of salary gender discrimination at Columbia.
At this time, discovery is scheduled to end soon; Columbia is asking for a delay, and has not
yet given Chichilnisky´s lawyers all the material requested for a statistical analysis of salaries. A
date for the jury trial should be set at the end of June.
Chichilnisky´s Support Committee has begun fundraising, and is working to get more
press coverage of the case. There are plans for articles in the New York Daily News and the
Washington Post. The recent publicity given to the words of the President of Harvard, Lawrence
Summers, has helped educate the public on gender discrimination in higher education and how it
permeates the highest levels there. The Support Committee feels this illustration has helped
Chichilnisky´s case.
Pat Washington vs. San Diego State University
This case (see Spring 2003, Fall 2003, and Spring-Fall 2004 Newsletters) for denial of
promotion to tenure, continues in spite of many frustrations.
Pat Washington, whose life began in poverty, had worked many years to achieve the Ph.D.
This enabled her to become an assistant professor of women´s studies at SDS and a much loved
and admired academic and role model for students of color throughout the university. She found her
school and department welcoming until, on behalf of the students of color, as well as herself, she began
challenging the absence or inconsistent application of policies designed to ensure equitable and fair
process. Her career then began to suffer. Publication requirements which had sufficed for others, and
which she understood she would have to meet (and which she met several times over), were raised
twice and included subjective requirements such as "cutting edge" research.
Since the last WAGE Newsletter, Washington´s attorneys Robert Racine and Moises
Vasquez have refused to continue representing her because she would not accept a small financial
settlement offered by SDS. They had already been paid $30,000 from grants she received for her case,
and their bills and contingency fees would probably have required most of the settlement. Washington
had made it clear from the outset that her suit was not about money; it was about getting the tenure
and promotion she had earned but had been unjustly denied. Even if she were willing to accept a
financial settlement, the settlement offered did not come close to compensating for her years of
education, her salary since being denied tenure, her future earnings (her health has deteriorated
seriously with the stress of the case), and her legal costs.
After the disaster of losing legal representation and the bulk of the money available for it,
Washington´s case was accepted by Oakland attorneys Dan Siegel and Anne Weills. Their
excellence in the field of academic discrimination is well known and Washington´s roller coaster
ride was going up. But then Judge Jay Bloom dismissed the case saying "there is no evidence to
suggest the reasons [sic] she was denied tenure was because of her race or was in retaliation for the
complaints." (This conclusion came after the judge acknowledged many details in
Washington´s case, for example that her Tenure and Promotion Committee consisted of three
members of the department who were most antagonistic to her.) The findings of the EEOC in
Washington´s favor, and statistics of 21 African Americans in an 831-member faculty did not
suffice to show racial prejudice at SDSU. Washington´s attorneys are appealing this decision. The
California Faculty Association Arbitration decision also supported SDS, finding that SDS had not
violated its own procedural rules.
A positive outcome of Washington´s case is that recently SDS set up a Faculty
Committee to explore the issues of Black faculty, both for those still on the faculty, and for those who
have left. The committee report has been presented, but the responses to the committee survey of
present and former Black faculty have not. The San Diego NAACP has criticized the report for its
"lack of concrete actions and measurable outcomes and timeframes." The report´s
"recommendations for attracting and retaining Black faculty É are mostly taken from
´boiler-plate´ literature" and no acknowledgment is made of the problem of racism
within the University.
Washington and her supporters, with their experienced legal team, are working hard to get
Washington her day in court. They invite those who would like to help to call her at 619-582-5383.
Linda Schilcher vs. The Middle East Studies Program of the University of Arkansas et
al.
Schilcher´s case (see
Spring 2002 and
Fall 2002 Newsletters) is scheduled for trial on
October 24-25, 2005 in Federal District Court, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
-wage@wage.org-