Tolliver v. Yeargan, 83-1866

• Decision Date: 29 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1866,83-1866
• Citation: 728 F.2d 1076
• Parties: 39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1179, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,197, 16 Ed. Law Rep. 760 Charles L. TOLLIVER, Appellant, v. J.R. YEARGAN; James E. Halligan; Charles W. Oxford; James E. Martin; University of Arkansas, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1076

728 F.2d 1076

39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1179,

33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,197, 16 Ed. Law Rep. 760

Charles L. TOLLIVER, Appellant, v. J.R. YEARGAN; James E. Halligan; Charles W. Oxford; James E. Martin; University of Arkansas, Appellees.

No. 83-1866.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 1984.

Decided Feb. 29, 1984.

Richard Quiggle, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

David A. Stewart, Associate General Counsel, University of Ark., Little Rock, Ark., for appellees J.R. Yeargan, et al.

Before ROSS, JOHN R. GIBSON and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal was brought by Dr. Charles L. Tolliver from the district court's ¹ dismissal of his employment discrimination claim against the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. The district court's opinion is published at 567 F.Supp. 116.

The facts are essentially these: Dr. Tolliver was hired by the University in 1976, as an Electrical Engineering Professor, in an attempt by the University to improve minority representation on the faculty. He received a 12-month contract as a result of special minority recruitment duties he was to undertake. The normal contract for regular faculty members was nine months. He was extended tenure after his first year as a faculty member.

In February 1977, Dr. Yeargan became the chairperson of the Electrical Engineering Department, and had the responsibility of evaluating faculty and making salary recommendations. Raises were to be based on performance, and the areas of evaluation included service, teaching and research.

Dr. Tolliver's raises were generally lower than the majority of the department faculty but higher than at least one white department member. The appellant was evaluated as "good" in the area of service. His teaching load was considered "average," although some semesters it was comparatively light. Several student complaints were received concerning Dr. Tolliver's competency and effectiveness as an instructor. Finally, with regard to research, he never submitted any proposals in his area of academic specialty, nor had he submitted any manuscripts for publication, although encouraged to do so. All of appellant's proposals were in the area of minority affairs.

In the 1980-81 academic year, the appellant's contract was reduced to nine months in conformity with the other faculty contracts in the department. This was due largely to a decrease in private funding received for minority programs. Although Dr. Tolliver's contract was reduced to nine months, he has continued to work 12 months a year. Dr. Halligan, Vice-Chancellor of Academic Affairs, testified that this normally results in a salary increase because the salary for a 9-month contract is 80 percent of a 12-month contract, and a summer contract pays an additional 33 percent.

On the basis of these facts the district court held that Dr. Tolliver had failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and that even if he had, the defendants articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for their actions which was unrebutted by the appellant.

Dr. Tolliver presented three allegations of discriminatory treatment. First, the reduction of his contract from 12 to 9 months; second, the low salary increases; and third, racial harassment.

As to the reduction of appellant's contract from 12 to 9 months the district court found that even if the reduction was prima facie discriminatory, the University had a legitimate reason for the reduction, i.e., the funding from private sources donated specifically for his minority...