University's Derogatory Statements Entitle Professor To Jury Trial On Discrimination Claim
November 30, 2000
Mark G. Alexander- Jacksonville
A minority professor, who researched the interaction between drug abuse and AIDS, filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and later filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on national origin because he was not promoted to full professor. Dr. Chuang was hired by the University in 1982 as a non-tenured assistant professor of pharmacology at the school of medicine.
It is unclear from the court’s decision whether Dr. Chuang was denied tenure, or whether he was denied promotion to a tenure-track position. In either event, in 1995 Dr. Chuang claims that he was denied “promotion.” The trial judge ruled for the University and entered summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment entered by the trial court, and sent the case back to the trial court for a jury trial on the professor’s claims. Chuang v. University of California Davis, (9th Cir., August 30, 2000).
The appellate court reversed because all of the tenured and tenure-track faculty within the department were white, except for two Chinese-American professors hired after Dr. Chuang made his complaint with the EEOC. On several occasions the department had hired white professors from outside the University into tenure track positions, rather than promote Dr. Chuang. On one occasion the University hired a white professor as a “Target of Opportunity for Diversity” appointment, which Dr. Chuang says was a program designed to recruit minority and women faculty.
One of the most offensive facts alleged by Dr. Chuang concerned certain derogatory statements made about persons of Chinese descent. At a meeting of the executive committee of the Davis School of Medicine, a member of the committee asked about a Chinese-American professor (not Dr. Chuang) whom the faculty had asked the administration to pursue as a candidate for department chair. The administration had never pursued this candidate. According to one account, a member of the executive committee remarked that “two Chinks” in the department were more than enough; and in response, the Dean laughed. Apparently, the reference was to Dr. Chuang and his wife Linda Chuang who worked with him. The University denies that these statements were made, but the court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the claimant at the summary judgment stage of the litigation. The court pointed out that the statement, if made, was by a person in a leadership position, and that another person in leadership “laughed.” The court held that the alleged statement followed by a “laugh” is direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
Dr. Chuang also claimed that the University forcibly relocated his research laboratory to the basement level of the building in close proximity to the morgue. Dr. Chuang alleges that this forcible relocation was for the purpose of freeing the space for use by white researchers. The relocation of Dr. Chuang’s laboratory had an adverse impact on Dr. Chuang’s research, and the close proximity to the morgue created difficulties for Dr. Chuang in light of his religious faith. In response, members of the administration reportedly said to Dr. Chuang that “worse things” would happen to him, and that he “should pray to your Buddha for help.”
The court held that the forcible relocation of the laboratory disrupted important, ongoing research projects. The removal of or substantial interference with work facilities important to the performance of the job constitutes a material change in the terms and conditions of a person’s employment. The court also held that the “admonition of a high-ranking official to an Asian-American employee to ‘pray to your Buddha’ during the time of an adverse employment action is sufficient evidence of discriminatory motive….”
The court evaluated Dr. Chuang’s claim in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products (2000). The Supreme Court held that if the jury rejects the employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons as unbelievable, the jury may infer discrimination without additional proof. In other words, the jury can find discrimination if the employer’s explanation for its actions is not believable. In Dr. Chuang’s case, the court held that the professor had more than enough evidence to defeat summary judgment and proceed to jury trial on the merits.
We learn several lessons from this case. First, there should not be any derogatory statements or jokes in the workplace about ethnicity, national origin, race, religious faith or the like. Further, leaders should not tolerate offensive statements or jokes by others. The Chuang court viewed laughing at the joke as a form of tolerance of the offensive conduct and evidence of discrimination.
A second lesson is that employees and courts will consider substantial interference with facilities or resources as a material change or breach of the terms and conditions of employment. Such changes, therefore, should not occur without reasonable notice and non-discriminatory financial or educational justifications.
A third lesson is the importance of developing clear policies, procedures and practices in such a manner that the employer can clearly articulate its legitimate reasons, rationale and basis for employment decisions.