You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Case Updates:
Linda Schilcher vs. the University of Arkansas: Settlement
This case was filed in 1999 after Schilcher was terminated at the time of a third-year review by the dean of her division. Her termination occurred despite positive second- and third-year reviews from her department and a written promise of a six-year probationary period prior to a tenure decision (see Spring 2002 and Fall 2002 Newsletters). Schilcher had given up a tenured associate professorship at Villanova University to help Arkansas build its new interdepartmental program for Middle East Studies. She charged discrimination and retaliation due to being female, to not being of Arab descent, and to complaining about the treatment of women in the Middle East Studies program as well as administrative irregularities in the dean´s oversight of the program´s $23,000,000 endowment from Saudi Arabia. All three female faculty members in the Middle East Studies program complained of sexual harassment and discrimination.
One of these faculty members, Gwenn Okruhlik, sued for tenure denial due to sex discrimination and hostile work environment. She was awarded $353,000 in a jury trial (see Fall 2002 Newsletter). The university appealed this decision, and it was overturned by Federal Judge Jimm Larry Hendren, and upheld upon appeal. Mark Cory, one of those named in Schilcher´s suit, is currently the subject of a sexual harassment suit filed by a former University of Arkansas undergraduate (see Arkansas Suit, this newsletter).
In Schilcher´s case, Judge Hendren, a graduate of the University of Arkansas, had both narrowed the time period about which Schilcher could complain, and had thrown out many aspects of the case, including a number of the parties allegedly responsible for the discrimination.
A settlement in October 2005 has ended the case. Schilcher received $215,000 to drop the suit; $160,802 for health and emotional damages, $54,198 for lost wages. She is now working as a goatherd in California so these sums, compared to the damages, sound very modest indeed. However, given the actions of the courts in her and Okruhlik´s cases, she may have been wise to accept this price for the destruction of her health and career.
One of the conditions of Schilcher´s settlement is a gag order. The information for this article comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education, The Morning News of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and http://home.earthlink.net/~schilchersupport. Visit the latter for more details, including the written promise of a six-year probationary period, Schilcher´s positive second- and third-year reviews, and a very informative Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.
Charlene McMahon vs. Carroll College
This case began in 2002. Charlene McMahon was one of four professors in tenure-track positions who were not promoted to tenure and filed suit (see Fall 2003, SpringFall 2004, and Spring 2005 Newsletter). The first part of McMahon´s case, her claim of gender discrimination because she wasn´t promoted to tenure, continues. Discovery is complete, and Carroll College is asking for a summary judgment against her on all three aspects of the case: tenure denial, breech of contract, and retaliation. There will be a decision on the summary judgment in the next 3 to 6 months.
In the past Carroll has offered mediation with the understanding that employment would not be part of the settlement. It has now agreed to mediation with the possibility of employment. McMahon hopes that mediation will start shortly.
This fall her suit was amended to include the charge of retaliation. McMahon had applied for the nontenured position that the college created to replace her former position. Despite being the most qualified applicant, she was not hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated and found Carroll to have retaliated against her. The EEOC recommended that McMahon be hired, she receive back pay, Carroll´s administration receive training on discrimination, and the college post the EEOC finding. Carroll College has refused. The college was unable to find a full-time person to replace McMahon, and is again trying to fill the position. McMahon is again applying.
In addition to their fight with the four former tenure-track professors, Carroll College has been fighting to keep the faculty from unionizing. The American Federation of Teachers has been scared off but the United Auto Workers, which has previously represented adjunct faculty members successfully, has come in very ably on behalf of the Carroll College faculty. The college lost its bid to have itself declared a religious institution, which would have freed it from unions. All other technicalities have now been decided in the prospective union´s favor. The next step is negotiation between the would-be faculty union and Carroll College. Should Carroll College refuse to do so, the National Labor Relations Board will file suit.
Pat Washington vs. San Diego State University
Pat Washington was hired as the first Black tenure-track faculty member in San Diego State University´s Women´s Studies Department in August of 1996 (see Spring 2003 and Fall 2003 Newsletter and Washington´s Web site at: http://patwashington.org).She was denied tenure and promotion and fired from the university in 2003 despite having been named Most Influential Teacher for three consecutive years, winning dozens of awards for teaching and service to students and the community, giving presentations at local, state and international academic and related conferences, and being widely published.
Washington exhausted all administrative remedies, including the California Faculty Association arbitration process. She filed an EEOC complaint for discrimination on the basis of race and gender combined, as well as retaliation.After a fourteen-month investigation, the EEOC "found reasonable cause" to believe that Washington had been discriminated against and then subjected to retaliation for complaining about her experiences. The EEOC urged San Diego State to reinstate Washington immediately with back pay, benefits, tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.Instead of reversing Washington´s wrongful termination from the university, San Diego State University officials maligned the EEOC investigator´s findings in press releases and public statements. Washington was forced to continue her quest for equitable treatment in a court of law.
Unfortunately, despite overwhelming evidence documenting the discrimination and retaliation Washington experienced prior to and during her application for tenure and promotion, California superior court judge Jay Bloom dismissed her case. His decision completely ignored Washington´s claim that she was discriminated against on the combined basis of her race and sex (a claim supported by the EEOC). Instead, Judge Bloom ruled that "lack of collegiality" was a legitimate reason for denying her tenure and promotion.
[Editorial note: The American Association of University Professors states: "an absence of collegiality ought never, by itself, to constitute a basis for nonreappointment, denial of tenure, or dismissal for cause" (see www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/collegia.htm). For further discussion of this rather elusive criterion, see Spring 2003 and Fall 2003]
Washington and her attorneys filed an appeal of the judge´s decision in July of 2005 and await vindication in the appellate court.
To date, many organizations and political leaders champion Washington´s efforts to be reinstated with tenure and promotion at San Diego State.Organizational supporters include the American Association of University Women Legal Advocacy Fund, Feminists Against Academic Discrimination, the For Chicana/o Studies Foundation, San Diego Branch naacp, California now, California Black Faculty Staff Association, and the general membership of the National Women´s Studies Association and the Women of Color Caucus, and Sociologists for Women in Society. Elected leaders voicing support for Washington include U.S. Congressman Bob Filner, California Senator Christine Kehoe, and San Diego City Councilmember Toni Atkins.
The EEOC findings, together with details about Washington´s credentials and the SDSU Women´s Studies criteria for tenure, are available at Washington´s Web site: http://patwashington.org.
Graciela Chichilnisky vs. Columbia University
This case grew out of the breach of a settlement Chichilnisky received in 1995 after she had sued Columbia University for gender discrimination. (See Fall 2003, SpringFall 2004, and Spring 2005 Newsletters.)
The present suit started in reaction to the assault of the university on Chichilnisky´s research offices in which records of research were destroyed, but lately the issues of salary discrimination and hostile workplace have become more prominent. The MarchApril issue of Academe, the journal of the American Association of University Professors, showed gender inequality in Columbia´s salaries for full professors. On average, males earn $143,000 and females earn $128,000. The statistical expert hired by Chichilnisky´s legal team has also found evidence of salary discrimination.
Recently, Chichilnisky was informed that, due to an oversight, she had not been receiving her raises for the past two years. Before the correction of this error her salary was less than the average for female full professors at Columbia, although she has been on the faculty since 1977 and therefore should not be on the bottom of the ladder. Chichilnisky´s position is in the economics department, where, as is not surprising for a male-dominated field, salaries are well above average. However, after the corrections her salary is still well below that of the average male full professor at Columbia.
Hostile workplace has evidenced itself this year in the removal of Chichilnisky´s campus office in the statistics department. Coincidentally, this was done by the same administrator involved in the pay raise oversight. When Chichilnisky met with her first class, she was surprised to hear from her students that they could not register for her course on line, the usual method for registration at Columbia. Later, she learned that the statistics receptionist had told her teaching assistant that Chichilnisky had not had an office in Statistics for a year. Chichilnisky had visited the department office in August without being told of any planned changes, so she assumed the receptionist´s information was due to a clerical error. She wrote to the head of the office staff. The reply came from the administrator mentioned above, who said that she no longer had an office in Statistics and wouldn´t have one in Economics because there was no space. Chichilnisky´s students were understandably unhappy about this and wrote a letter of protest (viewable at www.PetitionOnline.com/gcoffice/petition.html).
The Economics department has since found an office that she can use for two hours a day, two days a week in order to hold office hours for her students.
Columbia continues to remain uninterested in settlement and the case appears to be headed to trial.
-wage@wage.org-