Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University.  Plaintiff, a former studio art professor at Liberty University who was 79 at the time, brought an age discrimination claim against the University after it declined to renew her contract, citing increased demand for digital arts course offerings.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Fourth Circuit held, first, that two comments made by University officials suggesting that plaintiff might wish to characterize her departure as a retirement were not direct evidence of discrimination because they were made only after the decision not to renew her contract.  It similarly held that a comment that plaintiff seemed “resistant to change” did not support an inference of discrimination because her Chair and Dean had both informed her multiple times over a two-year period that she needed to improve her technology and digital art skills, which she took no steps to do.  Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff’s prima facie case failed because she had not demonstrated she had met the University’s legitimate expectations.  Finally, having resolved the statutory issue in favor of the University, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of the University’s assertion of the First Amendment “ministerial exception” defense, citing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. 

Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a part-time adjunct instructor at Penn State University, brought age discrimination claims against the University after it hired younger candidates, including graduate students, for multiple courses and independent studies, for an internship coordinator position, and for a full-time contract lecturer position. The court held that most of plaintiff’s claims failed for lack of pretextual evidence. In particular, plaintiff presented nothing beyond his own subjective beliefs to support allegations that the University preferred the successful candidates for unlawful reasons, as opposed to their superior qualifications. In granting summary judgment to the University on his claims regarding course assignments in independent studies, the court found that plaintiff could not have been “replaced” by younger instructors because the students, rather than the University, initiated their own projects. 

Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former adjunct instructor in dentistry, nursing, and biology at Delta College, brought an age discrimination claim against the College after he was not hired for a tenure-track biology instructor position. Plaintiff was 68 at the time, and the successful candidate was 38. The College asserted that it did not grant plaintiff an interview because his letter focused on his accomplishments as a dentist rather than pedagogy. At various points, however, members of the search committee cited other reasons, including that plaintiff noted that his transcripts were already on file rather than submitting additional copies for the committee’s consideration. In denying the College’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the court held that the differing reasons cited for not granting plaintiff an interview were sufficient to cast doubt on the College’s stated motivation for not hiring him.