Skip to main content

No "Academic Deference" Given to University's Denial of Tenure Application When Charge of Racial Discrimination Made


Mawakana v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Kemit Mawakana ("Mawakana"), a black male, worked at the University of the District of Columbia ("University") as a law professor.  Mawakana was on a three year contract and in 2009 it was renewed.  In 2010, he was promoted to Associate Professor and he subsequently applied for tenure.  In 2012, he attended a meeting of the faculty subcommittee that was assigned to review his application for tenure as was told the application "was in good shape."  However, the subcommittee apparently told Mawakana soon after that it has concerns about his scholarship.  The dean of the law school and the chair of the subcommittee asked Mawakana to withdraw his application which he refused to do.  The subcommittee then denied Mawakana's request for tenure.  The University Provost adopted the recommendation of the subcommittee with the University President upholding the Provost's recommendation.  Mawakana subsequently received notice his tenure application had been denied and he would be terminated in August 2013.

Mawakana proceeded to file suit against the University under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the D.C. Human Rights Act ("DCHRA") on the grounds that he had been discriminated against because of his race, in regard to the University's denial of his tenure.  The University moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted on the grounds that the University had "academic deference" in regard to making tenure decisions.  Mawakana proceeded to appeal.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief only looks at the "academic deference" portion of the Court's opinion.)  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that while academic institutions had been granted an exemption by Congress in regard to Title VII, that exemption had long since been rescinded.  While some courts had found that deference to academia was appropriate in certain circumstances, the United States Supreme Court has all but clarified that the normal Title VII standard applies to universities.  Following this reasoning, the Court held that a concept of academic freedom does not entitle a university to special deference in a Title VII tenure case such as this.  It is important to note here that the Court recognized that the University's decision to deny tenure cannot be second guessed if the decision to deny tenure was made in good faith.  However, if Mawakana could establish that the University's decision to deny tenure was made as a result of Mawakana's race, no "academic deference" could be given to the University's decision.

Judgment:  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling and reinstated the case on the grounds that Mawakana could proceed on his Title VII and DCHRA claims on the grounds that the University did not have "academic deference" to discriminate against Mawakana's tenure application because of his race, as alleged in Mawakana's petition.

The Takeaway:  This was quite the novel argument for the University to make here, wasn't it?  I understand, generally speaking, the University's belief that it should be provided some latitude (or "academic deference") to make decisions over whether to approve or deny a tenure application.  With that being said, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals clarified, while a university has some ability to approve or deny a tenure application, that decision cannot be rooted in an unlawful nature...such as racial discrimination.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Henderson

Date:  June 14, 2019

Opinion:  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/5F54313E6207C36E8525841900509AC1/$file/18-7059.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more