Peng-Fei Chang v. University of Rhode Island

• Decision Date: 20 January 1983
• Docket Number: 79-0087 S.,Civ. A. No. 77-0070 S
• Citation: 554 F. Supp. 1203
• Parties: Lucy PENG-FEI CHANG v. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND. Diane SELEEN, et al. v. BOARD OF REGENTS, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

554 F. Supp. 1203

Lucy PENG-FEI CHANG v. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND. Diane SELEEN, et al. v. BOARD OF REGENTS, et al.

Civ. A. Nos. 77-0070 S, 79-0087 S.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

January 20, 1983.

Abedon, Michaelson, Stanzler & Biener, Milton Stanzler, Lynette Labinger, Providence, R.I., for plaintiffs.

Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, John F. Bomster, Edward L. Maggiacomo, Michael Kelly, Nicholas Trott Long, Providence, R.I., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SELYA, District Judge.

These consolidated cases are presently before the Court on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, filed September 29, 1982, and plaintiffs' objections thereto. Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases have asserted the existence of a widespread and invidious pattern and practice of sex discrimination which allegedly pervades all facets of faculty employment at the University of Rhode Island, including recruitment, hiring, entry level at the time of hiring, compensation, tenure, promotion, termination and contract non-renewal. A class of current and former women faculty members and applicants has been certified, although a motion to reconsider the class certification is currently pending before this Court. Defendants, in the instant motion, seek brevis adjudication in their favor anent the claims for class relief in the categories of compensation, promotion, tenure, termination and contract non-renewal.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants have submitted the affidavit of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin, a statistician retained as an expert by defendants to analyze the University's employment practices over the past ten years. Dr. Siskin's study purportedly utilizes the statistical method known as "multiple regression analysis." On the basis of this assay, Dr. Siskin concludes that no statistical basis exists for the conclusion that women, as a class, have suffered discrimination at the University with respect to compensation, promotion or tenure.

In augmentation of the Siskin study, defendants have submitted the affidavit of Frank Newman, who has served as President of the University of Rhode Island since August of 1974. Dr. Newman avers that, since his appointment, "it has not been the policy or practice of the University of Rhode Island to discriminate on the basis of sex with respect to ... employment of women faculty members at the University." On the basis of information and belief, Mr. Newman further asseverates that no discriminatory practices or policies have been in effect at the University since at least March of 1972.

Plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of Dr. Harriet Zellner as a part of their opposition to the instant motion. Dr. Zellner concludes that Dr. Siskin's study is "so incomplete and so flawed methodologically as to provide no statistical basis upon which to form any conclusions with respect to the charges made by plaintiffs." Among other things, Dr. Fellner's affidavit points out that Dr. Siskin: (i) analyzed faculty salary for only the final year of the period encompassing all academic years from 1971-72 to 1981-82; (ii) ignored any discrimination in placement or salary at the time of hiring; and (iii) failed to count as having been denied promotion any faculty member granted promotion by 1981, regardless of how many times that person was previously denied promotion. Both Dr. Siskin and Dr. Zellner are duly credentialed individuals who would, from what presently appears of record, be permitted to testify as experts.

Plaintiffs contend that they need not rebut Dr. Newman's affidavit because it is quintessentially conclusory and made on information and belief. See Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 339 U.S. 827, 831, 70 S.Ct. 894, 896, 94 L.Ed. 1312 (1950); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Having taken this position, plaintiffs, in the exercise of commendable barristerial caution, have nevertheless submitted documents indicating that in November 1977, Dr. Newman directed the formation of a university-wide Salary Review Committee, the mandate of which was to make recommendations to eliminate any genderbased inequities in faculty salaries. These recommendations were forthcoming in due course, and were thereupon endorsed by Dr. Newman and implemented by the University, resulting in retroactive wage increases for forty percent of the then-incumbent female faculty members. Plaintiffs have also submitted a collage of the University's affirmative action reports and Equal Employment Opportunity plans for the years 19...