Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama; November 7, 2012; Federal District Court
Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 7, 2012, concerning claims from Plaintiff Richard Martin, who alleged gender-based discrimination leading to denial of tenure and constructive discharge. This followed a motion to strike evidence filed by AUM on October 9, 2011. Martin's claims were part of a larger complaint by multiple plaintiffs alleging violations under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court had previously severed the claims and ruled on various motions to dismiss.
In evaluating the summary judgment, the court noted that the moving party must demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact, while the non-moving party must provide evidence to support their claims beyond mere allegations. Evidence considered for summary judgment includes depositions, documents, affidavits, and other materials, as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court stated that to prevent summary judgment, the non-moving party must substantiate their position with concrete evidence, not just theoretical doubts.
The facts established indicate that Martin was employed in a tenure-track position at AUM starting in the 2007-08 academic year, having over 30 years of experience in higher education with prior tenure received at two institutions that did not require publications. His academic record includes 40 publications and 40 book reviews, although some were produced after his tenure at AUM. Additionally, Martin has engaged in various committee roles and administrative duties throughout his career. The court intends to grant AUM's Motion for Summary Judgment and partially grant the Motion to Strike.
Martin was provided a faculty handbook detailing tenure policies upon his hiring at AUM. The handbook states that prior full-time service at another institution may influence the length of the probationary period for faculty members. Tenure applicants are evaluated on their teaching, research, and service contributions. Chancellor John Veres clarified that an applicant's entire career and body of work are considered in the research evaluation.
The tenure application process involves submitting an application to the Department Head, who coordinates a review by tenured faculty, each providing written feedback. These evaluations, along with the Department Head’s recommendation, are forwarded to the Dean, who adds their input before sending the entire application to the Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs. The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure, composed of six Deans and three tenured faculty members, votes by secret ballot, and the materials reach the Vice Chancellor, Chancellor, and ultimately the President of Auburn University.
If tenure is denied, applicants can appeal to an Appeals Committee. Prior to applying for tenure, Martin underwent a pre-tenure review where his committee identified research as needing improvement and recommended three peer-reviewed articles, with book chapters considered acceptable. Martin claims to have met this recommendation at the time of his tenure application, having three peer-reviewed articles and a fourth under review. However, Veres noted that no AUM policy guarantees that a specific set of credentials will assure a successful tenure decision.
Martin applied for tenure in the 2009-2010 cycle while serving as Department Head. His tenure application underwent initial review by Ralph Ioimo from the Department of Justice and Public Safety (JPS) and Brad Moody and Thomas Vocino from the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, due to a lack of tenured faculty in JPS. Moody and Vocino recommended Martin for tenure, despite Moody noting that Martin's research performance was "not spectacular" and that his tenure candidacy was a close call. Vocino acknowledged Martin's re-established research program as a crucial factor for his recommendation.
Ioimo, however, voted against Martin's tenure, describing his scholarship as "extremely poor," citing only three peer-reviewed articles over 30 years and referencing a recently denied tenure case for a similar publication record. Martin claimed in an affidavit that Ioimo had a personal interest in denying his tenure to replace him as Department Head.
The Dean of the School of Sciences, Karen Stine, later recommended Martin for tenure, highlighting his recent increase in scholarly activity post-pre-tenure review. This recommendation, along with the previous evaluations, was forwarded to the Chancellor for consideration by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure, which ultimately advised against granting tenure due to "lack of demonstrated productivity in scholarship."
Subsequently, Vice Chancellor Dr. Keivan Deravi, the Chancellor, and Auburn University’s President all agreed with the denial, emphasizing Martin's modest research output in their communications. Martin's appeal of the decision was upheld by the Appeals Committee. He contended that several female colleagues received tenure despite being less qualified, listing their names and tenure dates for comparison.
Seven men received tenure during the 2009-2010 cycle, while Martin and one other were denied. Martin resigned on June 29, 2010, citing insufficient time to complete necessary publications, despite Chancellor Veres encouraging him to reapply for tenure. He accepted a tenure track position at Mercer University. Martin claims his tenure denial was gender-based, supported by evidence of his academic achievements. AUM acknowledges his qualifications but argues that they do not prove gender discrimination.
To establish gender discrimination under Title VII, Martin must prove a prima facie case using the McDonnell Douglas framework. This requires showing he belongs to a protected class, was qualified, was denied tenure, and that a similarly-situated female was granted tenure. AUM disputes Martin's qualifications and the existence of similarly-situated female candidates. The court finds Martin has demonstrated minimal qualifications, suggesting that AUM's objections should be assessed in the context of Martin's argument of pretext. Prior case law supports that a plaintiff meeting prima facie criteria may still face summary judgment if the employer's non-discriminatory justification is deemed credible.
To establish the fourth prima facie element in his discrimination claim, Martin identified several women who received tenure at Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM). However, to meet the comparability requirement, he must demonstrate that he is similarly situated to these non-minority employees in all relevant aspects. Tenure decisions are complex and involve multiple individuals and committees over time. Courts have found sufficient comparators when both the plaintiff and the comparator were faculty members in the same department and applied for tenure under the same procedures within a reasonable time frame. Conversely, a plaintiff failed to show sufficient similarity when comparators worked in different departments and were evaluated by different individuals.
In this case, AUM has presented a declaration from Chancellor Veres, explaining that evaluations in the tenure process can vary with changes in department heads, deans, and other evaluators. Additionally, different departments may have distinct criteria for tenure, such as prioritizing research over teaching. Martin has not demonstrated that the women he identified as comparators share significant similarities with him beyond their employment at AUM and their tenure applications. AUM has detailed the departments, tenure cycles, and decision-makers involved for each comparator, arguing that none are sufficiently similar to Martin.
Specifically, for the comparators Thomson and Knigge, evidence shows that they were evaluated during earlier tenure cycles than Martin and had minimal overlap in reviewers. Thus, these women are not comparable to Martin for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.
McPherson is the only individual cited by Martin as a comparator from the same School and Department, specifically the School of Sciences, Department of Justice and Public Safety. McPherson received tenure in the 2003-2004 cycle, but her tenure cycle was six years apart from Martin's. The tenure review process for McPherson involved different tenured faculty and administrative personnel compared to Martin's process; only two of the eight Promotion and Tenure Committee members were the same. Consequently, the court determined that McPherson and Martin were not sufficiently similar in relevant aspects to be considered valid comparators.
While Martin pointed to other women who applied for tenure in the same year, the court noted that Martin shared decision-makers with these women during the review process, despite their applications originating from different departments. Notably, both Martin and Baine, a female comparator, were not unanimously approved by their respective departments. The court concluded that even if only Baine is deemed a valid comparator, Martin has established a prima facie case for gender discrimination in the denial of tenure.
AUM's stated reason for denying tenure to Martin was insufficient research, one of the three evaluation areas in the tenure process. Martin challenged this rationale as subjective and illegitimate. However, the Eleventh Circuit allows for subjective reasons to serve as valid non-discriminatory justifications for employment decisions, provided there is a clear factual basis for those judgments. The court found AUM's rationale to be legitimate and nondiscriminatory, thus shifting the burden back to Martin to demonstrate that this reason was a pretext for intentional gender discrimination.
A plaintiff can establish pretext in a discrimination case by either demonstrating that a discriminatory motive more likely motivated the employer or by highlighting significant flaws in the employer's legitimate reasons for its actions. Martin asserts that AUM's justification for its decision is pretextual, presenting evidence in three main categories: his superior qualifications compared to women who received tenure, procedural irregularities, and evidence of discriminatory intent.
Regarding evidence of discriminatory intent, Martin has not provided any gender-based comments from AUM personnel. He submitted a memorandum from Thomas Wilson, who expressed a belief that promoting a female applicant, Knigge, would be discriminatory based on his own lengthy promotion experience. However, the court found this letter unconvincing as it lacks direct relevance to gender discrimination claims and does not support Martin's argument since Knigge was approved for tenure but not promotion.
On procedural irregularities, Martin argues that deviations from company policy could indicate discrimination. He claims that Ioimo's involvement in his tenure review was inappropriate due to a supposed personal motive related to his own ambitions. The court, however, sided with AUM, indicating that this assertion does not prove gender-based discrimination. Additionally, Martin contests Michael Burger's participation in the tenure review process on the grounds that he was not tenured, but AUM countered that Burger was listed as a Dean and had served on the committee for all applicants, including women, indicating no preferential treatment.
Martin contends that the awarding of tenure to Burger represents a procedural irregularity in his own tenure denial. AUM counters that this claim lacks merit as Burger is male, which the court finds undermines Martin's argument regarding pretext, especially since Martin asserts that he is more qualified than Burger. Martin alleges that Burger's qualifications were inadequate, citing that Burger only had a yet-to-be-published book at the time of his tenure application. However, the court notes that Martin's evidence, primarily Burger's curriculum vitae, fails to support his claims, as it shows Burger had two publications from 2009 during his employment at AUM. Consequently, the court cannot accept Martin's assertion that AUM did not follow proper procedures regarding Burger's tenure.
Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that any procedural irregularities were intended to conceal unjust reasons for Martin’s tenure denial. Martin has also presented extensive arguments comparing his qualifications to those of women who received tenure. The court emphasizes that the inquiry into pretext focuses on the employer's perception of performance rather than the employee's beliefs. It cites Eleventh Circuit precedent, which dictates that an employee must directly confront the employer's rationale rather than question its validity. While Martin and the women share some similarities in their tenure cycle, AUM argues they are not appropriate comparators due to departmental differences. However, since Martin was evaluated by the same committee as the women who received tenure, their relative qualifications will be examined by the court.
Baine received majority approval for tenure at the peer review stage, unlike Martin, who argues she is less qualified due to her lack of a Ph.D. and fewer years of experience. AUM's Declaration from Veres clarifies that a doctorate is not required for tenure in Fine Arts, which is Baine's discipline. Martin's claims do not effectively challenge Baine's qualifications or establish pretext, as demonstrated by the Vanasco case precedent.
The court considers five women—Buskit, Hogan, Ingram, Ward, and Jones—who were unanimously approved for tenure in the 2009-2010 cycle. Martin presents minimal evidence regarding Buskit and Hogan, noting that Buskit earned her Ph.D. in 2005 after 19 years in higher education, while Hogan obtained hers in 2003, lacking the years of experience Martin has. Martin's claims about these women's service and teaching qualifications do not challenge AUM's rationale for denying his tenure based on his research output.
Ingram, Ward, and Jones are critiqued by Martin based on their scholarly work. Martin argues Ingram is less qualified due to limited years as a professor and minimal lead authorship on publications. He claims that Ward's publications lack peer review and that she has less experience than he does, although he provides no supporting evidence for this assertion. Regarding Jones, Martin notes her master's degree status and fewer publications. However, AUM counters with a recommendation letter from Dean Goodson endorsing Ingram's strong research record and ongoing publication efforts. Evidence for Ward's qualifications includes a detailed CV of her publications and presentations. AUM also confirms that Jones's master's degree is the terminal degree in her department, supporting her qualifications.
AUM contends that Martin's comparator analysis is flawed because it dismisses publications by women unless they are in peer-reviewed journals, while Martin includes all his publications, regardless of their review status. AUM highlights that Martin had only one peer-reviewed publication prior to joining AUM, published 15 years earlier, and argues that his post-pre-tenure review publications did not demonstrate sufficient research productivity. AUM references Martin's deposition, where he acknowledged that one of his 2008 publications was not considered equivalent to a peer-reviewed work in his tenure evaluation. Additionally, he admitted that only one of his publications met AUM's tenure standards before his arrival. AUM asserts that Martin's argument leads to inappropriate publication counting, which is beyond the court's authority. The court agrees, noting that Martin's publications varied in type and that he was advised to establish a research program at AUM, which he believed he achieved, but was ultimately deemed insufficient for tenure. The court emphasizes that mere publication counts do not undermine the rationale for denying tenure, especially in the absence of evidence showing AUM's specific publication requirements for tenure or deficiencies in comparators' research. The court found that the evidence presented regarding the research accomplishments of female comparators was sufficient to justify their tenure decisions over Martin's. The court cannot conclude that the disparity in research output between Martin and the women awarded tenure is so significant as to suggest pretext in AUM’s decision-making. The determination of whether Martin deserved tenure is not within the court's purview, as federal courts do not function as super-personnel departments evaluating business decisions. Consequently, summary judgment is granted in favor of AUM regarding Martin's tenure denial claim.
The court finds that, despite potential disparities in qualifications among comparator women, a jury question has not been established regarding the denial of tenure claim. A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case and sufficient evidence to refute the employer's justification for the denial, as outlined in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. However, in this case, the prima facie case is weak; no woman from Martin's department received tenure during the relevant cycle, and there is a lack of evidence indicating gender-based animus. The employer's consistent explanation for the denial, based on Martin’s research, aligns with the record, and evidence of no discrimination is supported by the fact that seven men were granted tenure during the same cycle.
Regarding Martin's claim of constructive discharge, he contends that intolerable working conditions forced him to resign, citing insufficient time to enhance his publications for reapplication. However, this does not meet the legal standard for constructive discharge under the Eleventh Circuit. Consequently, summary judgment is granted on this claim as well.
Lastly, Martin's assertion of a pattern and practice of discrimination lacks a formal count in the Amended Complaint, and since the case has not been certified as a class action, summary judgment is also granted on this claim. The court concludes that, although unfortunate, Martin has not provided adequate evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that gender discrimination influenced the tenure denial.
The court's role is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists for a jury to conclude that Martin was denied tenure due to gender discrimination, rather than to assess the merits of awarding him tenure. The court finds no evidence supporting Martin's claims of gender discrimination or constructive discharge. Consequently, the court grants in part and denies as moot the Motion to Strike, and grants the Motion for Summary Judgment. Jackie Manning, a woman denied tenure in the 2009-2010 period, is mentioned, but her gender was not identified in the denial list. AUM's attempt to strike Martin's affidavit statement regarding tenure considerations is upheld, as it is deemed an improper conclusion.
The court clarifies discrepancies regarding Pia Knigge's departmental affiliation, noting she was granted tenure in Political Science and Public Administration, not the same department as Martin. Despite evaluating evidence Martin presented regarding pretext, the court excludes evidence related to race that does not pertain to the tenure decision makers for Martin. Martin claims Ioimo, a man, was less qualified than he, but does not substantiate this with relevant evidence. Thomas Vocino's affidavit, which supports Martin's qualifications, is also partially struck for stating impermissible opinions regarding tenure qualifications. The court emphasizes that deviations from policy alone do not imply discriminatory intent, referencing Mitchell v. USBI Co. The qualifications disparity must be significant to infer pretext, but this does not apply as a sole basis for the argument.
The court found that Martin failed to demonstrate that the qualifications of other candidates for tenure were so inferior that a reasonable person could not have selected them over him. The candidates McPherson, Thomson, and Knigge were deemed not similarly situated to Martin due to differing evaluators and timelines, thus their qualifications were excluded from the pretext analysis. Martin argued that McPherson had fewer publications than he claimed; however, her CV showed four peer-reviewed publications. Martin criticized Thomson for leading short publications and claimed Knigge was less qualified based on her publication record and performance evaluations. However, a memo indicated that Knigge's research was considered acceptable. AUM's motion to strike Martin's opinion regarding Buskit's qualifications was granted, as it was deemed improper testimony. Additionally, AUM's motion to strike Martin's characterization of Ward's presentations was also granted due to issues of hearsay and lack of personal knowledge. Despite the motions to strike, the court ruled that the claim could not proceed as an individual claim, rendering AUM's motion moot regarding that evidence.
