Johnson v. University of Pittsburgh, Civ. A. No. 73-120.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1973
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 73-120.
• Citation: 359 F. Supp. 1002
• Parties: Dr. Sharon JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

359 F. Supp. 1002

Dr. Sharon JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH et al.

Civ. A. No. 73-120.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

June 4, 1973.

Sylvia Roberts, Baton Rouge, La., Dianne M. Faber, Edwin J. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Charles C. Arensberg, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

KNOX, District Judge.

The court, having taken testimony and considered the evidence presented on both sides and the briefs and arguments of counsel, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with discussion setting forth the reasons therefor, as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

(1) Plaintiff was employed in 1967 for three years as Assistant Professor without tenure in the Department of Biochemistry of the School of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh at a salary of $13,000 per year.

(2) At the time of her employment, plaintiff was advised by the Chairman of the Biochemistry Department that the requirements for securing tenure within 6 years were research and membership in the American Society of Biological Chemists. (Exhibit B, Complaint).

(3) Plaintiff's employment as Assistant Professor without tenure was renewed in 1970 by the University of Pittsburgh for an additional term of three years until June 30, 1973. Her present salary after certain raises and a cost of living increase is $18,000 per year.

(4) Prior to June 30, 1973, it was necessary that the University of Pittsburgh decide whether plaintiff would be granted tenure and be promoted to Associate Professor or have her employment terminated.

(5) During her employment at the University of Pittsburgh, plaintiff did attain membership in the American Society of Biological Chemists; attained professional stature; did publish independent research of high quality; was active in other contributions; and, fulfilled her teaching requirements in a fashion that was not criticized prior to 1971.

(6) At no time was plaintiff advised that the criteria for promotion in her department had changed or that the criteria in the Faculty Handbook of the University of Pittsburgh had changed.

(7) The criteria for appointment and promotion of tenured employees is set forth in the Faculty Handbook of the University of Pittsburgh as follows: effectiveness as a teacher; research and scholarship; professional stature; and, other contributions.

(8) At no time during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 was plaintiff advised that her teaching was inadequate or that her research was not in an area relevant to the Department of Biochemistry or the School of Medicine except that the head of the Department in September 1971 suggested that she should have her equations ready on the blackboards in lecture.

(9) In September 1971 the University of Pittsburgh, by Dean Donald Medearis of the School of Medicine, agreed to be the grantee institution for grant application by plaintiff which resulted in an award of $93,000 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health for research to be conducted by plaintiff as principal investigator over a period of three years.

(10) On October 27, 1971, the Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry called a meeting of the tenured professors of that Department to discuss the appointment to tenure of plaintiff.

(11) The October, 1971, meeting was held without notice to plaintiff; without any request of plaintiff to supply references from whom the committee could obtain an assessment of her work; and, without affording plaintiff the opportunity to supply information on current research, or matters submitted to publications but not yet printed.

(12) There is no evidence that the procedure used in October 1971 was ever before used to terminate the employment of a professional employee in the tenure stream at the University of Pittsburgh.

(13) On October 27, 1971, it was dicided not to grant plaintiff tenure and this was based primarily on the committee's finding that plaintiff's teaching was inadequate. This conclusion of plaintiff's teaching was purportedly based on an assessment of four lectures by plaintiff in September 1971.

(14) The first lecture given by plaintiff in September, 1971, was regarded by the Chairman as being good in its approach and content but was criticised as to placing of equations on blackboards.

(15) The 1971 assessment of plaintiff's teaching failed to consider her teaching of 4 years; did not consider either plaintiff's teaching of graduate students in the Biochemistry Department, or plaintiff's other teaching functions in advising students and in laboratory instruction, nor was consideration given to the other criteria set forth in Finding No. 7.

(16) Plaintiff was first notified that her employment would be terminated on January 6, 1972, in a conversation with the Chairman of the Department, after she had been made aware of the possibility at a Christmas party. She later received a letter to this effect March 8, 1972.

(17) Plaintiff after several unsuccessful attempts met with the Dean of the School of Medicine in the months of March and April 1972 and thereafter met with the Senate Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee of the University of Pittsburgh. No existing procedure for further hearing by the Chancellor exists, although discussions continued for further proceedings which never materialized.

(18) Plaintiff's research grant will be terminated on June 30, 1973, unless her employment is extended by the University of Pittsburgh. It is necessary that the government grant as to which notice of termination was previously given by the University be continued by notice to the National Institution of Health prior to June 1, 1973.

(19) Plaintiff has made attempts to obtain employment elsewhere by listing her availability with professional societies, answering ads for jobs, and applying for employment to numerous institutions of higher education, all without success.

(20) Both the opportunity for other employment, and the opportunity to obtain funds for research are severely restricted at the present time because of cut backs in federal and other funds.

(21) Even if plaintiff is now offered employment at an institution starting September there is not sufficient time to transfer the research grant and it would be terminated.

(22) Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if her employment is not continued at the University of Pittsburgh through loss of salary, loss of the grant for research and damage to her professional standing.

(23) The evidence indicates that sex discrimination was operating at the University of Pittsburgh throughout the time of plaintiff's employment and the University has in effect an affirmative action plan which is purported to reduce such discrimination.

(24) In the decision of October 27, 1971, defendants presented no evidence that the criteria for promotion pertaining to plaintiff's research and scholarship, professional stature, and other contributions were properly considered.

(25) After October 27, 1971, the Chairman of the Biochemistry Department of the School of Medicine, Edward C. Heath, and the tenured faculty then solicited outside documentation to dis-credit plaintiff in an effort to substantiate their decision.

(26) In the granting of tenure after seven years to a male professor, Warren Divan, the School of Medicine through Dean N. Medearis applied different standards than those which were applied to plaintiff although Professor Divan taught some of the same courses as plaintiff and had substantially the same evaluation as a lecturer.

(27) The School of Medicine consistently paid less compensation and awarded smaller raises to plaintiff than were awarded to male members of the faculty.

(28) The School of Medicine has consistently granted tenure to men employees and not granted tenure to women employees.

(29) In 1971 plaintiff received an annual merit and cost of living increase in compensation in the amount of $900 per year, while in July 1972 after the decision to terminate her employment for ineffectiveness, plaintiff received a merit and cost of living increase in the amount of $1,100.

(30) The termination employment will result in damage to plaintiff in interruption of scientific research, in termination of research funds and in damage to reputation all of which factors may render it impossible for plaintiff to recover professionally.

(31) In the event that the School of Medicine is required to continue the employment of plaintiff pending a final hearing this would be "disadvantageous" to defendants according to the testimony of Dean Donald N. Medearis but the disadvantage would be small compared to the irreparable harm to plaintiff as above set forth.

(32) The decision to terminate the employment of plaintiff and refuse her tenure is not final and is subject to modification prior to June 30, 1973.

(33) Plaintiff filed a complaint before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 9, 1972, and received a 90 day letter authorizing her to bring this suit on November 17, 1972.

(34) Plaintiff filed this suit on February 9, 1973, and has applied for a preliminary injunction to prevent termination of her employment on June 30, 1973. This application was heard before the court on April 2, May 16, 17 and 18, 1973.

DISCUSSION

After this case had been filed and after we had commenced taking the testimony of plaintiff in connection with her application for preliminary injunction the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered its decision in Braden v. University of Pittsburgh, 477 F.2d 1 (slip opinion filed April 11, 1973,) in which another sex discrimination case brought by a female assistant professor in the dental school which had been dismissed by another judge of this court was reversed and sent back for a full development of all the facts. The court directed that the facts be developed to determine whether the University of Pittsburgh was a State Institution or not and...