|
||||||||||
| Home | The Facts | Latest News | From Pat's Desk | How to Help | Supporters | About Pat | Links | Site Map | Contact | |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund Expresses Outrage at Dismissal of Discrimination Case Against San Diego State UniversityJudge’s Decision Lets University Hide Behind the Façade of CollegialityThe American Association of University Women (AAUW) Legal Advocacy Fund expressed outrage at the dismissal of a much-publicized discrimination in tenure denial case against San Diego State University (SDSU). On April 8, a California superior court dismissed the case of AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund-supported plaintiff Pat Washington, a former assistant professor of women’s studies at SDSU, who sued Trustees of the California State University and Colleges for sex and race discrimination combined and retaliation when she was denied tenure. “The court’s decision completely ignores the plaintiff’s claim – a claim supported by a finding of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - that she was discriminated against on the combined basis of her sex and race. Instead, the court allowed the university to cover up its discrimination by asserting ‘lack of collegiality’ as a legitimate reason for denying her tenure,” said Leslie T. Annexstein, director of the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund. “In reality, the claim of a lack of collegiality is frequently used by universities against women seeking tenure to mask a hostility to opening up the highest ranks of academia to anyone who does not ‘fit’ into the old boy’s network of the professorate,” Annexstein commented. In its decision, the court rejected Washington’s assertions that discrimination was the underlying factor that led to her tenure denial. The judge stressed that although the evidence may show that Washington’s colleagues did not like her, “[a] personal grudge or resentment can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision. Plaintiff’s perception of a discriminatory motive is not evidence of a discriminatory intent.” Washington responded to the decision with disappointment, but reinforced her belief that her case is not over. “I must have my day in court. The decision of one judge isn’t the end – it’s just a temporary setback,” said Washington. “Not being given the opportunity to tell my story to a jury of my peers and putting this decision in the hands of a single judge is not acceptable. I am waiting for justice.” Washington began employment at SDSU in 1996 as a tenure-track professor in the women’s studies department. At the time she was hired, she was the first black tenure-track professor in the department’s 30-year history. By the time Washington submitted her tenure application in 2001, she had become the only faculty member in the women’s studies department to be judged on three separate–and successively more stringent–sets of requirement for tenure. Nevertheless, Washington believes that she met and exceeded the revised criteria. However, faculty within the women’s studies department declined to recommend Washington for tenure and the chair of the department seconded the faculty’s recommendation, commenting negatively on Washington’s “collegiality.” The university ultimately denied tenure to Washington in 2002. In 2002, Washington filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC found that she had been discriminated against based on her race and sex combined, and retaliated against by SDSU for her previous complaints about racially discriminatory treatment, and recommended that the university award her tenure, promotion to associate professor, and back pay with benefits. The EEOC’s attempts to reach a conciliation agreement with SDSU failed. Washington's attorney, Dan Siegel of Siegel & Yee in Oakland, California, echoed Washington’s disappointment with the judge’s decision. "The decision was surprising and very disturbing. The judge ignored compelling evidence of discrimination and retaliation and made credibility decisions that must be made by a jury. We definitely plan to appeal the decision and expect to be successful." The AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund has contributed more than $13,500 to Washington to help defray legal costs associated with her case. A full case summary is available at http://www.aauw.org/laf/cases/washington.cfm. Learn more about tenure issues from the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund by visiting http://www.aauw.org/laf/library/tenure.cfm. Editors: Interviews are available with AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund director Leslie Annexstein on this and other cases. Contact Jean-Marie Navetta at (202) 785-7738 or email navettaj@aauw.org to set up an interview. ### The AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund provides funding and a support system for women seeking judicial redress for sexual discrimination. LAF is the nation’s largest legal fund focused solely on sex discrimination in higher education. Visit our website at http://www.aauw.org for more information. AAUW: Because Equity Is Still an Issue
Subscribe to automatically receive AAUW Media Alerts and Press Releases! |