Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured Associate Professor at Tennessee Technological University brought Title VII claims alleging employment sex discrimination following denial of a promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor. Plaintiff applied for promotion in the fall of 2020. She received a majority vote recommending her for the promotion from the English Department, as well as a recommendation from the interim chair of the department, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Provost recommended against plaintiff’s promotion, reasoning that “there is not adequate documented evidence to satisfy the [University] Policy criteria,” specifically in reference to plaintiff’s scholarship. Following the Provost’s recommendation, the President of the University ultimately denied her application, wrote that plaintiff’s teaching, service, and outreach category was sufficient for promotion, but that the quantity and frequency of her scholarship – two published scholarly articles and a book review over her five-year tenure at the University – was concerning. Plaintiff wrote. Plaintiff appealed to the Faculty Affairs Committee, which found procedural errors in the Provost’s review and unanimously voted to recommend the Provost’s denial be overturned and plaintiff be promoted. Notwithstanding, the President rejected the recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee. At the same time, plaintiff alleged two of her male colleagues with fewer achievements were promoted. The court found plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated she was qualified for promotion, citing the University’s President’s statement that her teaching, service, and outreach record was sufficient for promotion. Further, while the President and Provost seemed to rest their decision on plaintiff’s scholarship, the University policy contained no publication quota for the scholarship portion of the promotion criteria. Finally, the court found plaintiff sufficiently presented evidence to establish her male colleagues were (1) not members of the protected class due to their gender; and (2) similarly-situated to plaintiff as they sought the same promotion, during the same timeframe, within the same department, subject to the same policies and ultimate decision maker (the University President), obtained the same peer support, and were “weak in scholarship.”