Harel v. Rutgers, State University
| Decision Date | 24 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 95-5137(WHW).,Civ. 95-5137(WHW). |
| Citation | 5 F.Supp.2d 246 |
| Parties | Dr. Arie HAREL, Plaintiff, v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, President Francis Lawrence, Dr. Joseph Seneca, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Michael Sussman, Jimmy Santos, Sussman, Bergstein & Wotorson, Goshen, NY, John Brennan, Jr., Brennan & Duncan, Spring Lake Heights, NJ, for Plaintiff.
John Peirano, Carpenter, Bennet & Morrissey, Newark, NJ, for Defendants.
Dr. Arie Harel ("Harel") brings this civil rights action against Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey ("Rutgers" or "the University"), Dr. Joseph Seneca, Vice President for Academic Affairs ("Seneca"), and Dr. Francis Lawrence, President of Rutgers ("Lawrence"). Harel alleges that the defendants denied him tenure on account of his Israeli national origin and gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, the Court decides this motion without oral argument by counsel. For the following reasons, the Court grants summary judgment to all defendants.
Harel is an operation management scientist who was born in Liberitz, Czechoslovakia October 9, 1946. When he was six months old, he was taken to Israel1 and became an Israeli citizen upon the declaration of that nation's statehood in 1948. In 1980, Harel came to the United States to begin doctoral studies at Columbia University. He joined Rutgers as an adjunct assistant professor in September 1985 and, after receiving his doctorate degree in management science, became an assistant professor in the Quantitative Studies Department2 at the University's Graduate School of Management in 1986 or 1987.
Defendant Seneca, the University's Vice President for Academic Affairs, served as chair of the Promotion and Review Committee during plaintiff's 1992-93 and 1994-95 tenure evaluations. Defendant Lawrence is the President of Rutgers. He opposed Harel's tenure bid on several occasions.
Rutgers utilizes a multi-level evaluation process to determine whether to award tenure to members of its faculty. The University Policy with Respect to Academic Promotions (the "Policy") provides that teaching, scholarship, and service should be considered in deciding whether to grant tenure:
For general teaching/research faculty, scholarship, including research accomplishments, is the primary criterion. Excellence in scholarship ... is necessary to the achievement of tenure; effective teaching ... is also normally a condition for the achievement of tenure. Only in rare instances where an individual's scholarship has enabled his/her teaching to achieve national recognition, that is, to make an impressive and recognized impact on teaching in the discipline as a whole, not limited to this University, may teaching become a basis for tenure. Significant accomplishments in the activities specified under the criterion of service will strengthen a candidacy for tenure. Such accomplishments are expected in a member of the profession, but cannot replace scholarship and research or teaching effectiveness as a justification for tenure.
See John J. Peirano Certif. ("Peirano Certif."), Exh. A at 6. The Policy further provides that only Id. at 4.
The defendants contend that Harel was denied tenure because of the deficient quality of his scholarship. See Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 6. The Policy outlines how scholarship should be evaluated in the making of tenure decisions:
[S]cholarship, as measured by peer recognition of its originality, impact on, and importance to the development of the field, is demonstrated most typically by refereed publications, such as journal articles and books of high quality. Scholarship and research accomplishments are also demonstrated by the design and execution of applied research in the laboratory or in the field; through the presentation of papers at organized scholarly meetings, usually at the national or international level; through the attraction of external support or competitive fellowships and awards appropriate to the faculty member's field of study; through such activities as editing, ... the compilation of information, and the development of materials that make information more assessable to researchers, other scholars, and practitioners; and through publication in other academic or professional journals and lecturing in professional and other public forums.
Peirano Certif., Exh. A at 2. According to Ronald Armstrong, the current chair of plaintiff's department, the factors employed to assess the impact of a candidate's scholarship include: (1) the quality of the journals in which the candidate's articles appear; (2) the frequency that the works are cited; (3) whether the work is published in refereed journals; (4) whether the work is co-authored; (5) the level of recognition of the work by the candidate's peers; (6) the number of publications; (7) whether the candidate has received awards for his scholarship; and (8) whether the candidate has published on subjects beyond his dissertation topic. See Santos Certif., Exh. 2 ¶ 13.
The Academic Reappointment/Promotion Instructions describe the procedures one must follow to seek tenure. See Peirano Certif., Exh. C.3 The candidate prepares a promotion packet that generally consists of his/her curriculum vitae and additional documents and materials submitted in support of the application such as recently published works. The packet will include any confidential letters submitted by academics who are in the candidate's field outside of the University. The department chair is responsible for soliciting these required external letters of evaluation. See id., Exh. C.
At the first level of the process, tenured faculty within the candidate's department review the promotion packet. The department chair may appoint a reading committee to prepare a written assessment of the candidate's scholarly work. The chair then convenes the departmental committee to discuss the candidate's qualifications and vote on the tenure bid. A positive recommendation requires approval of two-thirds of those voting. The department produces a report that reflects the majority and any minority views among the peer review group. See id.
The candidate's promotion packet and the departmental report are then submitted to the Dean's Advisory Committee on Appointments and Promotions ("A & P Committee"). The A & P Committee, formed of two faculty members appointed by the dean and two faculty members elected by the faculty, evaluates the promotion packet and makes a written recommendation to the dean. See id.
Then the dean evaluates these materials and makes his own independent recommendation of the merit of the tenure application. If his recommendation differs from that of the department, the dean must discuss the matter with the department chair before submitting his recommendation. See id.
If either the dean or the department favors the grant of tenure, the application materials are advanced to the Promotion Review Committee ("PRC"), which purpose is to advise the University President on appointments and promotions to positions of tenure. The PRC is chaired by Rutgers Vice President for Academic Affairs, defendant Seneca, a non-voting member. Its task is "to assure the President that the prior process of decanal judgment and peer review has integrity, in the sense that the peers in the same or adjacent fields who have expressed their judgment are indeed at the leading edge of their fields, that appropriate evidence and analysis have been presented of accomplishment and impact on the field to support these judgments, and that the dean has applied the highest, University-wide standard of quality." See id. at 13.
After making these assessments, the PRC forwards a written recommendation to the President, defendant Lawrence, who in turn evaluates the evidence and materials accumulated during the process and makes his own recommendation to the Board of Governors. After considering all available information, the Board makes the final tenure determination. See id.
The University first reviewed Harel's candidacy for tenure in the 1990-91 academic year. The seven department faculty members who evaluated his promotion packet voted unanimously to recommend tenure. Four ranked his scholarship as "outstanding," one rated it as "between outstanding and above average," and two found it to be "above average." Jimmy M. Santos Certif. ("Santos Certif."), Exh. 11. The A & P Committee and the Dean also favored tenure. The PRC, however, did not recommend that Harel be promoted to the rank of associate professor with tenure because it found "insufficient evidence of peer recognition for sustained, original scholarly contributions of importance to the development of the discipline to justify promotion and award of tenure at this time." See Peirano Certif., Exh H. He was ultimately denied tenure. Harel did not grieve this decision nor did he allege at that time that the adverse result was because of any type of discrimination.
Plaintiff was next considered for tenure in the 1992-93 academic year. By then, Harel had published seven refereed journal articles (three of which he co-authored) and one refereed letter to the editor, had one journal article at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Housing Authority, Atlantic City
...or otherwise provide equitable compensation to] a qualified member of a protected class." See Harel v. Rutgers, The State University, 5 F.Supp.2d 246, 264 (D.N.J.1998) (Walls, J.). Courts presume that "these acts, otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on consideration of imp......
-
Clayton v. Branson
...... that the Supreme Court has found to be necessary to establish a constitutionally protected property interest. Harel v. Rutgers, 5 F.Supp.2d 246, 273 (D.C.N.J.1998). In sum, plaintiff herein identifies no basis or source for a "property right" to a monetary settlement with the city. Furt......
-
Kohn v. At & T Corp.
...Affairs, 23 F.3d 150, 153 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948, 115 S.Ct. 359, 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994); Harel v. Rutgers, The State University, 5 F.Supp.2d 246, 263 (D.N.J.1998). "Direct evidence discrimination would be evidence which, if believed, would prove the existence of the fact in ......
-
Summy-Long v. Pa. State Univ., 1:06–cv–01117
...v. CVS Rx Servs., Inc. , 142 F.Supp.3d 321, 341 (M.D. Pa. 2015), aff'd , 660 Fed.Appx. 149 (3d Cir. 2016).218 Harel v. Rutgers, State Univ. , 5 F.Supp.2d 246, 266 (D.N.J. 1998), aff'd sub nom. Harel v. Rutgers , 191 F.3d 444 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Kunda v. Muhlenberg College , 621 F.2d 532......
-
Motions
...of the tasks for which a deadline is specified in the scheduling order, you must move to amend the scheduling order. Harel v. Rutgers , 5 F.Supp. 2d 246 (D. N.J. 1998). The court usually considers the diligence of the moving party and prejudice to the opposing party and court when deciding ......
-
Table of Cases
...Bros. Body Shop, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 848 F.Supp. 1276, 1290-91 (S.D. Miss. 1994), Form 7-30 Harel v. Rutgers , 5 F.Supp. 2d 246 (D. N.J. 1998), §7:65 Harik v. California Teachers Ass’n , 326 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003), Form 7-51 Preparing for Trial in Federal Court......