Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn.
Decision Date | 19 June 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 76-316-NA-CV.,76-316-NA-CV. |
Citation | 518 F. Supp. 9 |
Parties | James M. CROUSHORN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE and the University of Tennessee. James M. CROUSHORN v. Horace BASS, Ben T. Granger, and the University of Tennessee. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
George C. Paine, II, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
R. A. Ashley, Atty. Gen., State of Tenn., Nashville, Tenn., William J. Haynes, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Beauchamp E. Brogan, Gen. Counsel, University of Tennessee, Ronald C. Leadbetter, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.
Plaintiff James M. Croushorn instituted two actions in this court, which have been consolidated for trial. In the first action, plaintiff, a white male, claims that his employers, the University of Tennessee (the University) and its Board of Trustees, discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e-2 and that they retaliated against him by discharging him in violation of 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e-3. During trial plaintiff withdrew his claim of reverse racial discrimination, leaving only the retaliatory discharge claim for consideration by the court. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief in this first cause. In the second action, plaintiff contends that defendants Horace Bass, former Commissioner of Human Services for the State of Tennessee, Ben P. Granger, Dean of the School of Social Work of the University (UTSSW), and the University infringed upon his first amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. ?? 1983, 1985, and 1986. In this action, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief. Prior to the filing of the first action, plaintiff fulfilled all statutory prerequisites for Title VII suits. Jurisdiction over both these causes is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. ? 1343.
In September 1974, plaintiff commenced his employment as an assistant professor of social work on the faculty of the Nashville branch of the UTSSW. His annual salary was $14,500. At the same time, Dr. John Colen, a black male, and Ms. Josephine Allen, a black female, also joined the faculty of UTSSW. During his first quarter of employment, plaintiff became aware that Colen had been hired as an associate professor, the rank above assistant professor, despite his lack of teaching experience. Plaintiff, who also had not previously taught, decided to investigate the matter further to determine whether there was inequity between his salary and Colen's. In order to obtain information, plaintiff checked the public records at the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. Although Colen's salary was not listed, plaintiff learned that Allen, who was also in her first teaching position, was receiving a salary of $16,500. Since Allen had been hired as an assistant professor, plaintiff speculated that Colen's salary as an associate professor was equal to or greater than Allen's. Plaintiff believed that he, Allen, and Colen were all performing virtually identical jobs. None of them had teaching experience, and only plaintiff and Colen had received their doctorate degrees. Plaintiff therefore believed that he was more highly qualified than Allen and that he and Colen were equally qualified. See Trial Transcript, at 53, 55. Based on this information, plaintiff concluded that there was inequity among the three salaries, and he decided that the differences resulted from reverse racial discrimination against him.
In early December, plaintiff contacted Colen and Allen to inform them that he intended to raise the matters of salary inequity and reverse racial discrimination formally with Dean Granger, the Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After Colen and Allen expressed to Dean Granger their concerns about plaintiff's activities, the dean and Dr. Bonovich, the director of the Nashville branch of the UTSSW, called plaintiff to question him about his complaints. They also related their extreme dissatisfaction that plaintiff had not confronted the administration with the problem before contacting other faculty members. Plaintiff stated that he was preparing a letter containing his allegations of salary inequity and that he would soon mail it to them. After receiving the letter, Dean Granger and Dr. Bonovich met with plaintiff to discuss the reverse discrimination complaint and also the manner in which plaintiff had pursued it. The conference was unproductive. The administrators primarily emphasized the inappropriateness of plaintiff's discussing salary complaints with Colen and Allen. The dean made no effort to explain that Colen and Allen were considered more highly qualified than plaintiff and thus entitled to higher salaries, but instead he insisted that no discrimination had occurred. Plaintiff, however, continued to believe that he was a victim of reverse discrimination.
In February 1975, Dr. Bonovich, following normal University procedures, prepared an annual "Academic Evaluation Form" on which plaintiff's professional performance was appraised. Dr. Bonovich rated plaintiff "satisfactory" overall, "satisfactory" or better on nine separate areas of evaluation, and "unsatisfactory" in one category designated as "institutional commitment." See Trial Exhibit P-9. Although Dr. Bonovich made no recommendation about whether or not plaintiff should be retained for the next academic year, he assumed that based on the evaluation plaintiff would be retained. See Trial Transcript, at 444.
Dr. Bonovich based his "unsatisfactory" rating in the area of institutional commitment primarily on the manner in which plaintiff proceeded with his salary complaint and an earlier grievance concerning Bonovich's handling of a security problem at Clement Hall, the facility housing the UTSSW. The Clement Hall incident had erupted when Bonovich assigned each male faculty member the responsibility of supervising the closing of the building one evening every two weeks. Plaintiff immediately objected to this assignment as an encroachment on his time and in writing refused to participate. See Trial Exhibit D-7. In a memorandum Bonovich explained to plaintiff that he could not simply refuse to participate but that he could appeal Bonovich's decision to the Dean. Plaintiff wrote several comments on this memorandum labeling Bonovich's conduct as authoritarian and calling for a discussion of the issue at the next meeting of the faculty, and he circulated copies to the male faculty members. Id. Bonovich again informed plaintiff of the proper method of reviewing an administrative decision of the branch director and advised him that neither formal nor informal review by the faculty was appropriate. Id. The issue was ultimately resolved when male and female faculty members volunteered to perform the assignment.
See Trial Exhibit P-11; Stipulations, No. 17 (filed June 11, 1979). The next day, Granger revised the evaluation made by Bonovich and inserted his own evaluation of plaintiff as "unsatisfactory" overall. In explanation, Granger wrote:
See Trial Exhibit P-9; Stipulations, No. 18 (filed June 11, 1979). On February 25, plaintiff received notification, by letter dated February 20, that he would not be retained and that his duties would end with the close of the spring quarter. On March 4, plaintiff filed an additional charge with the EEOC alleging that the University had discharged him in retaliation for his filing the discrimination complaint with the EEOC.
Plaintiff simultaneously commenced an appeal of the nonretention decision through the University's appeals apparatus, based, in part, on his claim that tenured faculty at the Nashville branch were not consulted in the making of the nonretention decision as required by the University handbook. The tenured faculty supported plaintiff's claim and urged the repeal of the decision on this ground. In April, plaintiff, his attorney, the University's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grove v. Frostburg Nat. Bank
...of Vought's request and the institution of the new policy, that the change was occasioned by her request. See Croushorn v. Board of Trustees, 518 F.Supp. 9 (D.Tenn.1980). At the time the policy was changed, although it applied to everyone, Vought was the only employee to whom the rule would......
-
McLaughlin v. State of NY
...rev. in part, 719 F.2d 950 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958, 104 S.Ct. 2169, 80 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984); Croushorn v. Board of Trustees, 518 F.Supp. 9, 29 (M.D.Tenn. 1980); Dual v. Griffin, 446 F.Supp. 791, 801 (D.D.C.1977). In one Title VII sexual discrimination suit, the District of ......
-
Bolduc v. Town of Webster
...on May 15 (he actually did not file it until June), which may also qualify as protected conduct. See Croushorn v. Board of Trs. of Univ. of Tenn., 518 F.Supp. 9, 12 (M.D.Tenn.1980) (stating that, under Title VII, an indication of an intent to file a discrimination charge qualified as protec......
-
Reeder-Baker v. Lincoln Nat. Corp., Civ. No. F 86-26.
...Whether an activity was "opposition" or "participation" is critical in Title VII retaliation cases. Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn., 518 F.Supp. 9, 20 (M.D.Tenn.1980). The "participation" clause is a subset of the "opposition" clause, covering a much narrower range of activ......
-
Retaliation
...have generally granted less protection for opposition in an enforcement proceeding); Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn., 518 F. Supp. 9, 21 (M.D. Tenn. 1980) (“While the ‘participation’ clause covers a narrower range of activities than the other, it gives those activities stro......
-
Table of cases
...no pet.), §3:7 Crouch v. Whirlpool Corp., 447 F.3d 984, 986 (7th Cir. 2006), §25:6.C.1 Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn. , 518 F. Supp. 9 (M.D. Tenn. 1980), §26:2.B Crowder v. Kitagawa , 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996), §21:7.B.1 Crowell v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. , __ Fed. ......
-
Retaliation
...have generally granted less protection for opposition in an enforcement proceeding); Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn., 518 F. Supp. 9, 21 (M.D. Tenn. 1980) (“While the ‘participation’ clause covers a narrower range of activities than the other, it gives those activities stro......
-
Table of cases
...no pet.), §3:7 Crouch v. Whirlpool Corp., 447 F.3d 984, 986 (7th Cir. 2006), §25:6.C.1 Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn. , 518 F. Supp. 9 (M.D. Tenn. 1980), §26:2.B Crowder v. Kitagawa , 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996), §21:7.B.1 Crowell v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. , __ Fed. ......