You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Case Updates:
Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber vs. Regents of the University of California and Yolanda Garcia et al. vs. Regents of the University of California
A class-action suit that consolidated these two earlier ones at Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) has come to a potential settlement. UC, which runs lanl, has agreed, subject to the approval of the judge in charge of the case, to pay $12 million as part of a settlement for the two class-action suits brought by female and Hispanic employees that alleged discrimination at LANL. A lab spokesman said the settlement was reached "to avoid millions of dollars in legal fees and years of time and effort spent on defending costly lawsuits." (He did not mention that the Department of Energy, which funds the lab, now restricts reimbursements for legal fees to its contractors, see Fall 2005 Newsletter). UC made the settlement proposal in May, just before LANL came under new management in June.
This will be yet another large settlement made by the UC labs. Kotla v. Regents, a suit at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, ended last year with an estimated total cost of $10 million for settlement and legal fees. Two other suits at Lawrence Livermore National Lab somewhat parallel to the LANL class actions were settled in 2005 and 2003: Ling v. Regents alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, and Singleton et al. v. Regents alleged discrimination on the basis of gender. For more information and updates about the Los Alamos case, see http://payequitynow.info/index.htm
Source: The New Mexican, 5/21/06
Graciela Chichilnisky vs. Columbia University
Graciela Chichilnisky joined the Columbia faculty in 1977 and become a tenured full professor in 1980. In 1991, she filed a class action suit on behalf of female faculty members of Columbia for equitable pay. The suit was settled in 1995. The current case arises from Columbia's alleged breech of this settlement. (For details, see
Fall 2003,
Spring-Fall 2004,
Spring 2005, and
Fall 2005 Newsletters.)
Recently Chichilnisky hired a new attorney, Robert Felix, who was recommended by the National Women's Law Center. Felix has brought new energy and tactics to the fight. He has informed Columbia of Chichilnisky's willingness to go to mediation, and her desire for settlement. He has also taken the issue of retaliation by Columbia against Chichilnisky to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Discovery has shown evidence that Columbia used Chichilnisky's illness with Lyme disease to deny her her research grants, and to try to remove her UNESCO chair; these are acts of disability discrimination. Felix is also asking the courts to grant Chichilnisky the right to punitive damages from Columbia. This is important because, unlike the rest of the case costs, punitive damages would not be paid by Columbia's insurance.
In addition to having a strong new attorney, the case has been assigned to a new judge. Judge Leland De Grasse is African American, which gives rise to the hope that he has a sensitivity to discrimination not always found in powerful people. He is known for having recently ruled that $6 billion in funds be transferred from New York State to New York City's public schools.
Columbia's behavior has shocked Chronis Polychroniou, Head of Academic Affairs and Founding Director of the Centre for the Study of Globalization at Mediterranean College in Athens. Last winter, he circulated a letter to President Bollinger, and got academics to join him in signing it. Chichilnisky's case has been endorsed by Feminists Against Academic Discrimination, which gave a generous check to help cover her legal costs, and her Support Committee has been fundraising.
Throughout her case, Chichilnisky has continued her professional work: teaching, research, and conferences. Now she has added work on behalf of other women academics suffering from discrimination. This winter she traveled to San Diego to give moral support to Pat Washington who was not promoted to tenure at San Diego University and is suing SDSU for race and gender discrimination. The lower court judge had thrown out Washington's case on the grounds that her department "didn't like" her and that was sufficient reason to deny her tenure. Many of Washington's supporters turned out for the arguments in Appeals Court. Before the session began, Washington's attorney spoke to the observers, instructing them in how to behave in court. The University's attorney then stood up and said "These instructions apply to observers who are here to support the University, as well." Graciela then popped up and asked, "Is anyone here to support the University Put up your hands." Of course, no one was present to support the University and Graciela's audaciousness in pointing this out added a note of humor.
Chichilnisky is still hoping for settlementand predicting a court date this year or next.
Charlene McMahon vs. Carroll College
This case concerns a small college in Wisconsin that failed to tenure four out of six tenure-track faculty members in 2003, apparently because it was trying to abolish tenure. The faculty has since unionized but the College is refusing to negotiate with the Union. Consequently, the National Labor Relations Board has filed suit against Carroll College for violation of labor law. (For details, see
Fall 2003,
Spring-Fall 2004,
Spring 2005, and
Fall 2005 Newsletters.)
Charlene McMahon, one of the four tenure-track faculty members, had brought suit for gender and disability discrimination. (Her denial of tenure came with her pregnancy and discrimination against the pregnant is considered disability discrimination.) Her case has three aspects: tenure denial, breech of contract, and retaliation. The last aspect is due to Carroll's refusal to hire her for the nontenure-track position which replaced her original tenure-track position, even though she was more qualified than the person hired for that position. The College has filed for summary judgment against her suit. The court briefs in regard to the summary judgment were sent to the court in January 2006. There has, as yet, been no determination by the court.
In 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found for McMahon in regard to the claim of retaliation. Carroll College refused to accept the Commission's decision and correct their behavior. The College repeated the retaliatory act twice by continuing to advertise for faculty and refusing to consider her application for the jobs. Additional eeoc complaints have been filed and are in various stages of the process.
Mediation of the case was attempted in January of 2006. Three attorneys and the College's then-President attended on behalf of the College. McMahon attended with her attorney. A small monetary settlement was offered, but not a correction of either the discriminatory or retaliatory acts.
Pat Washington vs. San Diego State University
For further background on this case see
Spring 2003,
Fall 2003,
Spring 2005, and
Fall 2005 Newsletters.
Washington's struggle became a legal case when she was denied promotion and tenure and then terminated in 2003. But the roots go back to when she advocated for graduate students of color who were being denied access to opportunities in the department, such as teaching assistantships, which were being given out on a basis of favoritism. The first Black tenure-track appointee in a thirty-year history of the Women's Studies Department, Washington's reward for advocating equitable treatment for students and others was a backlash of retaliation. The retaliation included frequently shifting and rapidly escalating tenure requirements, and ultimately, tenure denial even though she met the requirements. This was justified by the Department because they found her "lacking in collegiality."
Washington struggled to find adequate legal representation. In 2004, this struggle was rewarded when her case was taken by lawyers Dan Siegel and Anne Weills of Oakland. They are experts in the field of academic discrimination, having represented Jenny Harrison of UC Berkeley, Colleen Crangle of Stanford University, and others familiar to the readers of these pages. However, Washington and her attorneys have, to date, been denied their day in court. The Lower Court maintained that Washington's colleagues had a right to refuse someone they didn't like admission to their ranks and Washington hadn't proved they didn't like her because of racism (were you under the impression that the whole point of going to court is to prove your case there). The Appeals Court has twice upheld that ruling.
The EEOC has found for Washington, but, as in other cases (e.g., that of Charlene McMahon), an EEOC finding can be ignored, and SDSU has done so in this case. (See Washington's article "What Does an EEOC Finding Mean" in the
Spring 2005 Newsletter.) Although the Lower and Appeals Courts maintained that the Department has the right not to promote a candidate to tenure on the ground of dislike a candidate, these courts were silent regarding the fact that two other departments at sdsu voted to welcome Washington to their tenured ranks, and yet SDSU refused to make the appointment.
Although having your day in court is no assurance of justice, the San Diego courts appear to be very concerned about public exposure of sdsu's behavior, given the courts' refusal to permit the case to go to trial. Appeal papers are now before the State Supreme Court.
The American Association of University Women's Legal Advocacy Fund has given Washington another $6000 to support her case. The AAUW-LAF has now contributed over $20,000 to Washington, in addition to its letters of support for the court appeals. Many aauw women have come to her support events and court hearings, and aauw has provided her the opportunity to talk about her case and what it shows about the issue of discrimination for women in academia.
In the meantime, a second Black woman has just been hired in a tenure-track position at the Women's Studies Department. Also, one of the few tenured Black faculty at SDSU was just promoted to full professor, the second Black professor promoted to the top rank during the time of Washington's public fight for justice. Sometimes the people who plant the seed and grow the wheat are not the ones to reap the harvest.
Editor's note: We saw a similar phenomenon in the case of Jenny Harrison.
During her suit (which ended in 1993), a woman was promoted to tenure in the mathematics
department at the University of California at Berkeley. Since then, the mathematics department did
not hire a woman in a tenure-track position until 2004, when a woman received a joint
appointment in the physics and mathematics departments. Interestingly, another woman, who has
been a faculty member in economics for some years, is now listed as having a joint appointment in
economics and mathematics. These changes may be due to efforts to increase diversity sparked by
the 2001 audit of UC faculty hiring (see Newsletter).
-wage@wage.org-