Roebuck v. Drexel University, No. 87-1301

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore SLOVITER, BECKER and COWEN; BECKER
Citation852 F.2d 715
Parties47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 752, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,171, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 959, 48 Ed. Law Rep. 123 ROEBUCK, Dr. James R., Appellant, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 87-1301
Decision Date26 July 1988

Page 715

852 F.2d 715
47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 752,
47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,171, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 959,
48 Ed. Law Rep. 123
ROEBUCK, Dr. James R., Appellant,
v.
DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Appellee.
No. 87-1301.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 6, 1987.
Decided July 26, 1988.

Page 717

Jean R. Sternlight (argued), Alice W. Ballard, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Kathryn H. Levering (argued), James A. Matthews, III, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before SLOVITER, BECKER and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

James R. Roebuck, a disappointed academic tenure candidate, sued his former employer, Drexel University, alleging that but for discrimination on account of his race, he would have acquired tenure. The suit was grounded on both 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 (1982) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e to 2000e-17 (1982).

In the Sec. 1981 suit the jury found for Roebuck, but the district court granted judgment n.o.v. for Drexel, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Concomitantly the district court found for Drexel on the Title VII claim (tried without a jury). The district court also denied Roebuck's motion to alter or amend the Title VII judgment to conform with the jury's findings on the Sec. 1981 claim. Roebuck appeals.

For the reasons that follow, we find just enough evidence of discrimination to conclude that Drexel was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We nevertheless agree with the district court's assessment that the jury's verdict in favor of Roebuck was against the clear weight of the evidence. We therefore will reverse the grant of judgment n.o.v., but affirm the district court's alternative grant of a new trial.

We disagree, however, with the district court's ruling that it was not bound to conform its Title VII judgment to avoid inconsistency with the jury verdict. We instead follow the great weight of authority in other circuits and hold that principles of collateral estoppel and jury supremacy preclude a district court from issuing a judgment at variance with the jury's findings. We therefore will vacate the Title VII judgment in favor of Drexel, with instructions to the district court to await the jury's verdict upon retrial before rendering judgment on the Title VII claim.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dr. Roebuck, a black man, was hired in 1970 by Drexel as a Lecturer in the History-Politics Department of the University's College of Humanities and Social Sciences. In 1977, upon completion of his Ph.D., Roebuck was promoted to Assistant Professor and began his six-year probationary period for tenure. In 1983, after an extensive review of his credentials, Roebuck was denied tenure. 1

Drexel employs a multi-level tenure review process and has published detailed standards for granting tenure. Because it is important to the result, a description of the process and the standards follows.

A. The Process

A faculty member is eligible for tenure after completing six years of teaching at

Page 718

the assistant professor level. In the year preceding the year in which a faculty member will be considered for tenure, the candidate meets with the dean of his college and the head of his department for a "pre-tenure review meeting," at which the candidate is given specific suggestions for improving his record and his chances for tenure. The candidate then prepares a tenure dossier, which forms, in essence, his application for tenure, including all relevant materials (scholarship, teaching evaluations, etc.).

The candidate next meets with a departmental committee formed to review his tenure application. The committee considers the entire dossier as well as the views of external peer reviewers who have been sent samples of the candidate's scholarship. The committee prepares a report, including a recommendation, and forwards it to the department head, who performs an independent evaluation of the candidate's credentials. The department head's recommendation is then considered, along with the committee report and other materials, by the Collegial Committee, which is composed of two representatives from each department in the candidate's college and is chaired in a non-voting capacity by the dean of the college. The Collegial Committee performs a de novo review of the material and prepares a recommendation for the dean. The dean, and subsequently the University Vice President for Academic Affairs, perform their own independent reviews. If the Vice President's decision is negative, the candidate is denied tenure, but is entitled to appeal.

The appeals process allows the candidate to reargue his case at each level of the tenure review at which he was unsuccessful. Should he fail to gain reconsideration, the candidate can then choose to petition a standing appeals committee, which issues an advisory report to the University President, or the candidate can appeal directly to the President himself.

In Roebuck's case, his department committee unanimously recommended him for tenure; however each subsequent recommendation in the process was negative. Upon denial of tenure by the Vice President, Roebuck appealed directly to the President but tenure was denied.

B. The Standards

At each level of the process, the candidate's credentials are reviewed in three discrete areas--scholarship, teaching, and service. In order to gain tenure, the candidate's work must be rated at least "satisfactory" in all of the areas, and "outstanding" in at least one.

In reviewing a candidate's scholarship, a reviewer is expected to consider the work within the framework of the following priority scale: top priority--refereed publications; second priority--non-published but refereed work (such as conference papers); third priority--non-published work with a clear potential for refereed publication; and lowest priority--non-refereed publications. 2 Each tenure candidate's scholarship is reviewed not only by the tenure committees and advisors themselves, but also by external peer reviewers in the candidate's field, whose reviews are available for consideration at each stage of the process.

Drexel's standards for review of a tenure candidate's teaching ability are vague, and there is little in the record to illuminate the requirements or the assessment process. It is apparent, however, that review is based primarily on evaluations by students, peer and department head recommendations (of both current and former, and both internal and external, faculty), and evaluation of the nature and substance of the courses taught by the candidate.

The standards for assessing service are exceedingly vague and the parties disagree about the application of these standards. A document entitled "Departmental and Collegial Review Procedures for Tenure" states that the tenure decision involves

Page 719

consideration of the candidate's "service to Drexel," and then explains that decisionmakers should evaluate the candidate's "record of performance in ... University, collegial, and departmental service, and community service relevant to the mission of the institution." J.A. at 1354. There is dispute, however, over what type of service is "relevant to the mission of [Drexel]," and over the extent and breadth of service necessary to qualify as "outstanding." Drexel argues that outstanding service requires leadership, rather than mere participation, or alternatively requires "extramural activity promoting the University." Brief for the Appellee at 13. However, as we will explain in some detail, infra, Roebuck points to contrary evidence, which we must credit for purposes of this appeal. 3

Although a formal assessment of an applicant's rating on each of the three prongs is not required at each level of review, from testimony at trial it is apparent that Roebuck was denied tenure because his teaching and service were found merely satisfactory and his scholarship was determined to be unsatisfactory.

C. Roebuck's Record

James Roebuck was and is a resident of West Philadelphia, a predominantly black community where Drexel, a predominantly white institution, is located. At the time of his hiring, Drexel's relationship with that community was somewhat uneasy, and Roebuck was hired in no small part because of his perceived ability to help "develop a more positive presence in West Philadelphia [and] to work more closely with the community." J.A. at 43 (testimony of Roebuck). As Roebuck explained in his testimony at trial,

[w]hen I was recruited to come to Drexel, one of the things that was said to me was that Drexel was in the process of trying to reach out to the West Philadelphia community, that I as a West Philadelphia resident would be a particular value to the Drexel community in my ability to interact with that community.... That was the basic underlying commitment from the University to me when I became a member of the faculty.

J.A. at 273.

With that understanding, Roebuck devoted himself unfailingly to community service. His resume at the time of his tenure review read like a directory of community organizations, including membership on numerous boards of directors and the chairmanship of several. 4 Moreover, Roebuck

Page 720

plainly had participated in at least his fair share of intra-University service, primarily through his work on various faculty committees. 5

Roebuck's feedback on his service activities conformed with his understanding of his role at Drexel. As he explained,

I got consistently positive feedback on the things I was doing. That came not only in terms of comment by various administrative officials, it came in terms of letters that I received from some of those officials indicating I had done a good job, I had helped the University. It came in terms of my annual meetings of my department chairmen.

J.A. at 58; see also J.A. at 59, 272 (Roebuck's testimony on additional positive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
226 practice notes
  • Sheridan v. De Nemours, No. 94-7509
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 Noviembre 1996
    ...we recognize that a new trial may be granted even if the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict, Roebuck v. Drexel Univ., 852 F.2d 715, 735-36 (3d Cir. 1988), we have nonetheless cautioned that a district court should grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was contra......
  • Griffiths v. CIGNA Corp., No. 92-1413
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 Abril 1993
    ...Title VII has been violated. See Lewis v. University of Pittsburgh, 725 F.2d at 917 n. 8. However, in Roebuck v. Drexel University, 852 F.2d 715, 726 (3d Cir.1988), we reiterated the "but for" language by reference to Lewis. Yet, in Bruno v. W.B. Saunders Co., 882 F.2d 760, 764 (3d Cir.1989......
  • Homel v. Centennial Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 11–1996.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 21 Diciembre 2011
    ...536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (internal alterations and quotations omitted))); Roebuck v. Drexel Univ., 852 F.2d 715, 733 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that a decisionmaker's statements exhibiting racial bias could add support to the plaintiff's claim of racial discrimi......
  • Ponzini v. Primecare Med., Inc., 3:11–CV–00413
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 30 Agosto 2017
    ...a new trial when, in its opinion, the verdict is contrary to the ‘great weight of the evidence.’ " Id. (quoting Roebuck v. Drexel Univ. , 852 F.2d 715, 736 (3d Cir. 1988) ). In determining whether a new trial should be granted "a court is permitted to consider the credibility of the witness......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
226 cases
  • Sheridan v. De Nemours, No. 94-7509
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 Noviembre 1996
    ...we recognize that a new trial may be granted even if the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict, Roebuck v. Drexel Univ., 852 F.2d 715, 735-36 (3d Cir. 1988), we have nonetheless cautioned that a district court should grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was contra......
  • Griffiths v. CIGNA Corp., No. 92-1413
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 Abril 1993
    ...Title VII has been violated. See Lewis v. University of Pittsburgh, 725 F.2d at 917 n. 8. However, in Roebuck v. Drexel University, 852 F.2d 715, 726 (3d Cir.1988), we reiterated the "but for" language by reference to Lewis. Yet, in Bruno v. W.B. Saunders Co., 882 F.2d 760, 764 (3d Cir.1989......
  • Homel v. Centennial Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 11–1996.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 21 Diciembre 2011
    ...536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (internal alterations and quotations omitted))); Roebuck v. Drexel Univ., 852 F.2d 715, 733 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that a decisionmaker's statements exhibiting racial bias could add support to the plaintiff's claim of racial discrimi......
  • Ponzini v. Primecare Med., Inc., 3:11–CV–00413
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 30 Agosto 2017
    ...a new trial when, in its opinion, the verdict is contrary to the ‘great weight of the evidence.’ " Id. (quoting Roebuck v. Drexel Univ. , 852 F.2d 715, 736 (3d Cir. 1988) ). In determining whether a new trial should be granted "a court is permitted to consider the credibility of the witness......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT