Isabelle Blasdel v. Northwestern Un , 687 F.3d 813 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    No. 11-2075
    ISABELLE B LASDEL,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    N ORTHWESTERN U NIVERSITY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 09 C 5576—Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.
    A RGUED JUNE 5, 2012—D ECIDED JULY 19, 2012
    Before B AUER, P OSNER, and H AMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    P OSNER, Circuit Judge. This is a Title VII suit for employ-
    ment discrimination on grounds of the employee’s sex.
    After dismissing as untimely the first count of a two-
    count complaint, the district judge granted summary
    judgment in favor of the defendant on the second
    count and so dismissed the entire suit, precipitating
    this appeal.
    2                                               No. 11-2075
    The first count had alleged a series of discriminatory
    acts beginning when the plaintiff was hired in 2003 by
    Northwestern University, the defendant, and ending
    with the termination of her employment in 2008.
    The second count was confined to her denial of tenure
    in 2007 and the ensuing termination, which the parties
    treat as the inevitable consequence of the denial of ten-
    ure. The judge dismissed the first count on the ground
    that liability for all but the acts charged in the second
    count was time-barred. 
    2009 WL 5166218
     (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23,
    2009). For only the denial of tenure occurred within the
    300-day window for filing a charge of discrimination, 42
    U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), though if she proved that the denial of
    tenure was unlawful this would void the termination as
    well, assuming as we do that it was the automatic conse-
    quence of the denial of tenure. We think the judge’s
    dismissal of the first count was correct for the reasons he
    gave, and do not think it necessary to add our two cents’
    worth to his analysis. All we’ll decide is whether the
    plaintiff is entitled to a trial on her claim that she was
    denied tenure because she is a woman.
    University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 
    493 U.S. 182
     (1990), in
    rejecting a claim that materials submitted for considera-
    tion in a tenure determination should be subject to a
    privilege grounded either in federal common law or in
    the free-speech clause of the First Amendment, held
    Title VII fully applicable to such determinations. The
    Court explained that the elimination in 1972 of an ex-
    emption in the original Act for employment decisions
    by educational institutions had “expose[d] tenure deter-
    minations to the same enforcement procedures ap-
    plicable to other employment decisions.” 
    Id. at 190
    .
    No. 11-2075                                                 3
    But although the legal standard is the same whether
    the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case is a
    salesman or a scientist, practical considerations make
    a challenge to the denial of tenure at the college or uni-
    versity level an uphill fight—notably the absence of
    fixed, objective criteria for tenure at that level. Vanasco
    v. National-Louis University, 
    137 F.3d 962
    , 968 (7th
    Cir. 1998) (“such decisions necessarily rely on subjective
    judgments about academic potential”); Namenwirth v.
    Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System, 
    769 F.2d 1235
    , 1243 (7th Cir. 1985) (“tenure decisions have
    always relied primarily on judgments about academic
    potential, and there is no algorithm for producing those
    judgments”); Fisher v. Vassar College, 
    70 F.3d 1420
    , 1435 (2d
    Cir. 1995) (“it is difficult to conceive of tenure standards
    that would be objective and quantifiable”), abrogated on
    other grounds, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,
    
    530 U.S. 133
    , 147-48 (2000); Zahorik v. Cornell University,
    
    729 F.2d 85
    , 92-93 (2d Cir. 1984) (“the particular needs
    of the department for specialties, the number of tenure
    positions available, and the desired mix of well known
    scholars and up-and-coming faculty all must be taken
    into account . . . . [T]enure decisions are a source of unusu-
    ally great disagreement . . . . [T]he stakes are high,
    the number of relevant variables is great and there is
    no common unit of measure by which to judge scholar-
    ship”).
    And we must not ignore the interest of colleges and
    universities in institutional autonomy. Grutter v. Bollinger,
    
    539 U.S. 306
    , 328-30 (2003); Regents of University of
    Michigan v. Ewing, 
    474 U.S. 214
    , 225 (1985); Hosty v. Carter,
    4                                                No. 11-2075
    
    412 F.3d 731
    , 736 (7th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“academic
    freedom includes the authority of the university to
    manage an academic community and evaluate teaching
    and scholarship free from interference by other units of
    government, including the courts”); Piarowski v. Illinois
    Community College District 515, 
    759 F.2d 625
    , 629-30
    (7th Cir. 1985); Urofsky v. Gilmore, 
    216 F.3d 401
    , 412-15 (4th
    Cir. 2000) (en banc). Although the Supreme Court in
    University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 
    supra,
     
    493 U.S. at
    195-
    201, was emphatic that academic freedom does not justify
    immunizing materials submitted in the tenure process
    from the EEOC’s subpoena power, courts tread cautiously
    when asked to intervene in the tenure determination
    itself. They must be mindful that, as Judge Friendly said
    in Lieberman v. Gant, 
    630 F.2d 60
    , 67 (2d Cir. 1980), “to
    infer discrimination from a comparison among can-
    didates is to risk a serious infringement of first amend-
    ment values. A university’s prerogative ‘to determine
    for itself on academic grounds who may teach’ is an
    important part of our long tradition of academic freedom.
    Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 
    354 U.S. 234
    , 263 (1957) (Frank-
    furter, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring in the result)
    (citations omitted).”
    A disappointed candidate for tenure at a college or
    university may well be the best possible candidate along
    one dimension but not others. If A publishes an excellent
    academic paper every five years on average, is she better
    or worse than B, who publishes a good but not excellent
    paper on average every six months, so that at the end
    of five years he has published 10 papers and she only 1?
    Quantity and quality are (within limits) substitutes. A
    No. 11-2075                                              5
    company that made the finest automobile in the world,
    but made only one a year, would not be the world’s best
    automobile manufacturer. Or suppose Professor C used
    to publish a paper every six months, but she has
    slowed down, while D, who is younger, has not. That is
    an ominous sign from the standpoint of granting C
    tenure, because a tenured professor is very hard to fire
    even if he or she has ceased to be a productive scholar.
    With mandatory retirement now unlawful, the grant of
    tenure is often literally a lifetime commitment by
    the employing institution, barring dementia or serious
    misconduct.
    In some academic fields, moreover—including as it
    happens physiology—research requires costly lab-
    oratories financed by grants from the federal government
    or from foundations. Proficiency in obtaining grants is
    a highly valued capability in such fields; and scholars
    differ in their ability to obtain grants. Then too, office
    politics frequently plays a role in the award or denial of
    tenure; friendships and enmities, envy and rivalry—the
    stuff of such academic novels as Publish and Perish: Three
    Tales of Tenure and Terror, by James Hynes, or Randall
    Jarrell’s Pictures from an Institution—can figure in tenure
    recommendations by the candidate’s colleagues, along
    with disagreements on what are the most promising
    areas of research. In addition, many academics are hy-
    persensitive to criticism, especially by younger aca-
    demics, whom they suspect, often rightly, of wanting to
    supplant them. Although office politics and professional
    jealousy are bad reasons for denying tenure, an erroneous
    denial of tenure, as such, does not violate Title VII.
    6                                               No. 11-2075
    Namenwirth v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin
    System, 
    supra,
     
    769 F.2d at 1242
    ; Lieberman v. Gant, 
    supra,
    630 F.2d at 67-68
    ; cf. Anderson v. University of Wisconsin,
    
    841 F.2d 737
    , 741-42 (7th Cir. 1988).
    The decisionmaking process in an academic hierarchy
    creates further complication. Granting tenure, like ap-
    pointing a federal judge, is a big commitment. The
    final decision may be made by a committee, or an official
    such as a university provost or president, remote from
    the chairman and the other members of a candidate’s
    department. Even if invidious considerations play a
    role in the department’s recommendation for or against
    tenure, they may play no role in the actual tenure
    decision, made at a higher level. In the present case
    the tenure decision was made by Northwestern’s
    provost, and there is no evidence that he was influenced
    by the fact that Blasdel is a woman. So she can prevail
    only by showing that the provost’s decision was
    decisively influenced by someone who was prejudiced.
    Sun v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 
    473 F.3d 799
    , 812-13 (7th Cir. 2007); Qamhiyah v. Iowa State
    University of Science & Technology, 
    566 F.3d 733
    , 745-46
    (8th Cir. 2009); cf. Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chicago Park
    District, 
    634 F.3d 372
    , 378-79, 383-84 (7th Cir. 2011);
    Adelman-Reyes v. Saint Xavier University, 
    500 F.3d 662
    , 667
    (7th Cir. 2007).
    And finally, because so many factors influence the
    tenure process and because statistical inferences of dis-
    crimination are difficult to draw when there is only a
    small number of observations (tenure appointments in a
    No. 11-2075                                               7
    particular department may be few and far between), it
    can be difficult to infer the presence of an invidious
    influence such as the sex of the candidate merely by
    comparing successful and unsuccessful tenure applicants.
    Isabelle Blasdel was hired by Northwestern’s medical
    school to be an assistant professor in the physiology
    department beginning in 2003. She is an electro-
    physiologist—that is, she studies the electrical activity of
    the brain. She was 42 years old when hired by Northwest-
    ern and before that had worked for eight years as a non-
    tenure-track assistant professor at Boston University’s
    medical school. And before that she had held, since
    receiving her Ph.D. in 1987, postdoctoral fellowships in
    France and the United States and junior academic
    positions in France, her place of birth. Over her entire
    career before coming to Northwestern she had pub-
    lished 22 academic articles. Northwestern hired her in
    the expectation that she would be doing research on
    Parkinson’s disease as well as teaching students and
    seeking grants of outside funding for her research.
    Several months after arriving at Northwestern she was
    told that actually she’d been hired as an associate
    professor rather than as an assistant professor (the former
    being a higher rank, of course) and that she would be
    evaluated for tenure after four years, in 2007, rather
    than after six years, the period typically allowed to new
    associate professors, or nine years, the period typically
    allowed to new assistant professors. The period allowed
    to a faculty member at Northwestern’s medical school
    before the up-or-out decision on tenure tends to be
    8                                               No. 11-2075
    inverse to rank and (what is usually related) previous
    experience. The medical school’s stated policy is that
    “the probationary period . . . may be abbreviated in
    consideration of previous service at another institution”
    because the longer the candidate for tenure has been a full-
    time academic the greater the opportunity she’s had
    to prove herself a worthy candidate. Given Blasdel’s eight-
    year stint as an assistant professor at Boston University,
    the four-year “tenure clock” given her meant she would
    have been an academic for 12 years when it came time
    for the tenure decision.
    She did not, when hired or for that matter subsequently,
    ask for more than four years, although this may have
    been because the chairman of the department, James
    Surmeier, had told her at the outset that she’d do well
    at Northwestern and be awarded tenure. (He had been
    her big booster—the principal advocate of her initial
    appointment.) Two male faculty hired in the medical
    school while Blasdel was there were given shorter
    tenure clocks than she.
    She knew she was expected to obtain outside funding
    for her research (she received an initial inside grant of
    $500,000 to set up a laboratory—she was offered $600,000
    but requested that $100,000 be transferred to her hus-
    band, also a scientist, also hired to work at North-
    western’s medical school). She brought some outside
    funding with her to Northwestern but it was used
    up within months and was not renewed. During her re-
    maining time there she obtained only one other grant, of
    $900,000 spread over four years for research on drug
    No. 11-2075                                             9
    addiction. (Parkinson’s and drug addiction may seem
    unrelated, but Blasdel’s research specialty—the effects
    of dopamine on neurons, particularly in the subthalamic
    nucleus of the brain—relates to both.) That grant was not
    renewed either, apparently because she did little if any
    research on drug addiction, and published no papers
    on the subject, while at Northwestern.
    Contrary to Surmeier’s advice that she focus on drug
    addiction, she persisted with her Parkinson’s research
    and in 2006 published her only academic paper since
    joining the Northwestern faculty, which reported on the
    results of that research and was published in the Pro-
    ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
    States of America (PNAS), a top-ranked scientific journal.
    Eventually she asked an associate dean of the medical
    school whether she could request more time before she
    was considered for tenure, because she had realized
    belatedly that she had to reorient her research from Par-
    kinson’s to drug addiction. He said she could ask for
    an extension, though she didn’t. Surmeier yelled at her
    when he learned she’d gone over his head to inquire
    about an extension grounded on her needing to reorient
    her research, when he had already told her to do that
    and she’d refused. And he had already asked the
    associate dean to extend Blasdell’s tenure clock, in a
    letter stating that “much of [her] promise has not been
    realized, largely because of the demands associated
    with raising two young boys.” It is a strange letter, but
    for reasons unrelated to her being a woman. In it he asks
    that she be promoted to associate professor—he seems to
    10                                              No. 11-2075
    have forgotten that she already was an associate
    professor even though the department originally had
    planned to hire her as an assistant professor. He re-
    ceived a rather tart response from the associate dean, who
    reminded him of Blasdel’s actual rank and said that
    family problems were unlikely to justify an extension.
    Surmeier’s remark concerning Blasdel’s failure to
    realize her full promise because of the kids appears only
    in the letter about promoting her to associate professor
    and extending her tenure clock. His letter recommending
    her for tenure, thus seconding the physiology depart-
    ment’s tenure-recommendation letter, makes no
    reference to family issues (nor does the department’s
    letter). It attributes her failure to realize her full prom-
    ise—a failure too obvious not to be addressed if the
    letter was to be credible—to purely work-related prob-
    lems that were not her fault and had been overcome and
    therefore should not be regarded as an obstacle to
    tenure, which he urged that she be given.
    The same day that Blasdel had started work at North-
    western, so had Mark Bevan, also a physiologist. He was
    six years younger than she and had been an assistant
    professor at another university for only three years; so
    although appointed an associate professor like Blasdel
    he was given a six-year tenure clock. At a much-criticized
    presentation of her work on Parkinson’s disease, Bevan
    called her work “shit” and another member of the de-
    partment (Charlie Wilson) said she didn’t know what
    she was doing. After that meeting she complained to
    Surmeier that she wasn’t getting enough feedback from
    No. 11-2075                                               11
    Bevan and Wilson and he told her that he understood
    her “emotional need to be heard.” Apparently she’d
    fought back hard against Bevan and Wilson at the
    session in which she had presented her views—Surmeier
    described her to them somewhat apologetically as “com-
    bative” but asked them to give her another chance to
    present her views. She did, but failed to overcome
    their criticisms.
    As Blasdel’s four-year probationary period neared its
    end, she realized that she hadn’t published enough, and
    obtained enough external funding, to be awarded tenure.
    She needed an extension of time and Surmeier told her
    she might be able to obtain it because in his view North-
    western should accommodate the needs of “a woman
    scientist who reproduced.” The strange formula is
    treated by Blasdel’s lawyer (she repeats it incessantly in
    her briefs) as sexist. But in context it is apparent that all
    that Surmeier meant is that a woman scientist who has
    young children, as Blasdel did, should be given more
    time to prove herself as a scientist than a man unless
    her husband stays home with the kids (and Blasdel’s
    husband, also employed by Northwestern as a scientist,
    did not) or she is independently wealthy (and the Blasdels
    are not); for otherwise she will have to shoulder a heavy
    burden of child care.
    For whatever reason, Blasdel was not performing to
    expectations, as she acknowledged, and Surmeier was
    offering the associate dean an explanation that might
    persuade him to give her more time to prove herself. He
    explained that she was the “primary caregiver to two
    12                                              No. 11-2075
    young boys” who had had “difficulty transitioning [from
    Boston] to public school in Chicago.” He must have
    gotten this information from her, and she doesn’t
    suggest that it’s inaccurate. She comes close to arguing
    that such remarks, when made by a superior, are “ille-
    gal”—but when made to extenuate a woman scientist’s
    failing to realize her full promise could be complained
    of only by a man denied similar consideration.
    Surmeier’s choice of words to denote the class of
    women for whom family responsibilities can impede
    professional advancement was as we said strange—but
    scientists often talk strangely, geekily, as they have chosen
    a profession most branches of which are concerned with
    things (neurons, quarks, computer code, etc.) rather than
    with people. A scientist might say that a donkey is an
    ungulate that reproduces and a mule is an ungulate that
    doesn’t reproduce, whereas a layperson would just say
    mules are sterile. And similarly a layperson would say
    that allowances should be made for women scientists
    who have young children, while a scientist might
    separate women into reproducers and nonreproducers—
    and men as well.
    We mustn’t forget that Surmeier requested that Blasdel
    be hired in the first place, and did so with great enthusi-
    asm. Granted, we have rejected “the so-called ‘common
    actor’ [sometimes referred to as the ‘same actor’] presump-
    tion. When the same person hires and later fires the
    employee who claims that his firing was discriminatory,
    judges are skeptical, because why would someone who
    disliked whites, or Germans, or members of some other
    No. 11-2075                                                 13
    group to be working for him have hired such a person
    in the first place? It is misleading to suggest that this
    skepticism creates a ‘presumption’ of nondiscrimination,
    as that would imply that the employee must meet it or
    lose his case. It is just something for the trier of fact to
    consider.” Hernreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority, 
    315 F.3d 742
    , 747 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Waldron v. SL Indus-
    tries, Inc., 
    56 F.3d 491
    , 496 n. 6 (3d Cir. 1995). In this case
    it is something that undermines any inference that
    Surmeier harbors prejudice against female scientists. See
    Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff’s Department, 
    666 F.3d 444
    , 449 (7th Cir. 2012); cf. Petts v. Rockledge Furniture
    LLC, 
    534 F.3d 715
    , 724-25 (7th Cir. 2008).
    Blasdel decided not to request that the hands on
    her tenure clock be pushed back a year; instead she sub-
    mitted her tenure application within the four-year dead-
    line. The physiology department recommended tenure
    for her in an enthusiastic letter, Surmeier submitted a
    supportive letter as we know, and Blasdel also re-
    ceived supportive letters from neuroscientists outside
    of Northwestern.
    An ad hoc reviewing committee in the medical school
    seconded the department’s tenure recommendation while
    expressing concern about Blasdel’s “moderate publication
    record,” “uneven” productivity, and problems obtaining
    external funding. The committee’s report was then re-
    viewed by two members (one male, one female) of the
    medical school’s appointments, promotion, and tenure
    committee. They both recommended against tenure for
    Blasdel, because of her low publication rate, substantial
    14                                               No. 11-2075
    gaps in her publication record, relatively tepid recom-
    mendations from outside referees, and inability to ob-
    tain adequate external funds and renew the grants
    she did obtain. As Mark Bevan noted in his deposition,
    success in obtaining renewals of research grants is a
    vital consideration in tenure applications in scientific
    departments. Because of their expensive facilities and
    equipment, without research grants these departments
    wither. See, e.g., Sun v. Board of Trustees of University of
    Illinois, supra, 
    473 F.3d at 807
    ; Whaley v. City University of
    New York, 
    555 F. Supp. 2d 381
    , 406-07 (S.D.N.Y. 2008);
    Sundaram v. Brookhaven Nat’l Laboratories, 
    424 F. Supp. 2d 545
    , 574 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Harvard Medical
    School, “Criteria for Appointment and Promotion,” http://
    facultypromotions.hms.harvard.edu/index.php?page=
    AE_investigation; Johns Hopkins Medicine, “Faculty
    Policies: Appointments and Promotions of Full-
    Time Faculty,” § II.C, www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/
    faculty/policies/goldbook/promotions.html; University
    of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, “Guide-
    lines for Conversations with Tenure-track Faculty,”
    www.med.upenn.edu/mentee/bs1-3.shtml; Stanford School
    of Medicine, “Faculty Handbook,” § 2.4.I.1, p. 43
    w w w .m ed .st an for d .edu/academ icaffairs/handbook/
    documents/Chapter2.pdf. (All web sites were visited
    on June 29, 2012.)
    Failure to obtain the renewal of a grant is particularly
    serious. The initial grant is given in the hope that it will
    fund important research. The grant is likely to be renewed
    if but only if the hope is fulfilled—in other words only if
    the grantor believes that the money was well spent.
    No. 11-2075                                              15
    Nonrenewal may therefore imply criticism of the grantee
    and make it even harder for him or her to obtain
    future grants.
    As an example of “comments evidencing gender stereo-
    typing and discrimination,” Blasdel’s lawyer quotes the
    statement by Robert Lavker, one of the two reviewers
    of Blasdel’s tenure application, that “the demands of a
    family have been given as one of the mitigating circum-
    stances underlying [Blasdel’s] lack of productivity,” that
    he (Lavker) “appreciate[d] the weight that family can
    exert on one’s career and that the woman quite often
    bears the brunt of many of these burdens,” that “many
    institutions grant an additional year on the tenure clock
    for each child in a family,” and that if this hadn’t been
    done for Blasdel “I strongly suggest that her clock be
    extended.” This doesn’t sound like “gender stereotyping
    and discrimination,” but in any event must be placed
    in the context of Lavker’s entire evaluation of the physiol-
    ogy department’s recommendation for tenure. We there-
    fore quote it in full:
    I disagree with the ad hoc committee’s recommenda-
    tion of awarding tenure for the following reasons:
    1. Since finishing her post-doctoral fellowship in 1994,
    Dr. Mintz [Blasdel’s maiden name—it appears that
    she uses her maiden name and her married name
    interchangeably] has only published 4 papers without
    her mentor, and more importantly since joining the
    faculty at Northwestern, she has only published 1
    original manuscript. While her publications are in
    high quality, broad-readership journals, this level of
    16                                              No. 11-2075
    productivity is far below what is expected of an indi-
    vidual for tenure.
    2. Since joining the faculty at Northwestern, she has
    presented one invited lecture and has only been
    invited to present three lectures in total. Tenure-
    worthy candidates usually have many more invited
    lectures (e.g., Gordon or Keystone Conferences; visit-
    ing professorships) and involvement in symposia
    at national meetings both as an organizer and partici-
    pant. Such an extremely modest number of invited
    lectures fail to make a case for “substantial external
    professional recognition.”
    3. Dr. Mintz has not held leadership positions in any
    professional societies nor serves on any editorial
    boards. Such academic service, indicative of profes-
    sional recognition is usually [sic] and customary for
    tenure-eligible candidates.
    4. Dr. Mintz has only served as an Ad Hoc member
    once on a Study Section. Tenure-eligible candidates
    with this much time since finishing post-doctoral
    training usually serve or have served as permanent
    members of Study Sections. Again, this focuses on
    the issue of external professional recognition.
    5. Dr. Mintz has only one current NIH grant and
    does not provide evidence of success in competitive
    renewals of existing grants. Tenure-eligible candidates
    usually have two NIH R01 [Research Project Grants]
    grants, and/or evidence of the ability to successfully
    renew initial grants.
    No. 11-2075                                             17
    6. While the external referees uniformly praised
    Dr. Mintz’s scientific contributions and her scientific
    spirit, several questioned whether she would
    get tenure at their institutions. In addition, it
    is disturbing that nine individuals did not write
    letters and some claimed not to be familiar with her
    work even though many were in neurology and/or
    related fields. It is my experience that being a contro-
    versial person usually results in the generation of
    letters not the absence thereof.
    7. The demands of a family have been given as
    one of the mitigating circumstances underlying
    Dr. Mintz’s lack of productivity. I appreciate the
    weight that family can exert on one’s career and
    that the woman quite often bears the brunt of many
    of these burdens. Many institutions grant an addi-
    tional year on the tenure clock for each child in a
    family. If this has not been done for Dr. Mintz then
    I strongly suggest that her clock be extended.
    8. While I agree with [Surmeier] that Dr. Mintz has
    “great scientific promise” and “that she will continue
    to grow scientifically and elevate her level of produc-
    tivity,” in my experience, tenure is not granted for
    potential but rather for accomplishments. Therefore,
    taking all of the above into consideration, Dr. Mintz
    does not meet the requirements for granting tenure.
    Unsurprisingly in light of Lavker’s evaluation, and the
    recommendation against tenure by the other reviewer as
    well (Margarita Dubocovich, who in her report noted
    among other things that Blasdel’s “scholarly productiv[ity]
    18                                             No. 11-2075
    (publications, abstracts, invited seminars and con-
    ferences, national and international recognition) has
    been below average, and her teaching and service con-
    tributions has been minimal,” and “she has yet to demon-
    strate that she can renew her research awards”), the
    medical school’s appointments, promotion, and tenure
    committee unanimously recommended against tenure
    for Blasdel. The dean of the medical school concurred
    in the recommendation, as did the university’s pro-
    vost—the ultimate decisionmaker.
    There is no indication that any member of the medical
    school’s appointments, promotion, and tenure committee,
    or the dean, or the provost discriminates against women
    scientists. In the seven years that the dean had been
    in office when he recommended against giving Blasdel
    tenure, the percentage of tenure track female faculty in
    the medical school had increased from 20.5 to 25.4 percent
    and their rate of obtaining tenure had exceeded that of
    the male faculty. Nor is it suggested that the committee,
    or the dean, or the provost rubber stamps tenure recom-
    mendations by any department in the medical school—
    and of course if they did Blasdel would have gotten
    tenure, because her department recommended her for it.
    She argues that she was undermined by Surmeier and
    others. But her evidence of their being prejudiced
    against women is limited to a handful of stray remarks
    of ambiguous import at best—such as “a woman
    scientist who reproduces,” “emotional need to be heard,”
    “combative,” and Bevan’s once calling her “scary!” Bevan’s
    remark may well have been a compliment—the ad hoc
    committee noted that “blunt scientific style could . . . be
    No. 11-2075                                                  19
    viewed as a breath of fresh air in heated scientific dis-
    cussions,” and anyway the comment had nothing to
    do with the tenure process.
    This is not evidence on which a reasonable jury could
    base a finding of sex discrimination. Compare Petts v.
    Rockledge Furniture LLC, 
    supra,
     
    534 F.3d at 721-24
    ; Sun v.
    Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, supra, 
    473 F.3d at 813
    ; Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hospital, 
    190 F.3d 799
    , 806
    n. 7 (7th Cir. 1999); Morales-Cruz v. University of Puerto Rico,
    
    676 F.3d 220
     (1st Cir. 2012); Weinstock v. Columbia Univer-
    sity, 
    224 F.3d 33
    , 44 (2d Cir. 2000), with Costa v. Desert
    Palace, Inc., 
    299 F.3d 838
    , 845-46, 851, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (en banc), affirmed, 
    539 U.S. 90
     (2003). Blasdel’s lawyer
    disclaims any contention that there was a “conspiracy”
    among the university faculty and officials involved in
    the denial of tenure. And this is not a case in which
    the ultimate decisionmaker, though himself free from
    prejudice, is manipulated by an unscrupulous under-
    ling, as would be the case had Surmeier, actuated by a
    desire to maintain the physiology department as a male
    bastion, falsely charged Blasdel with plagiarism and the
    falsity was not discovered until after she was denied
    tenure. His fraud would be imputed to his employer, the
    university. Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 
    131 S. Ct. 1186
    , 1190
    n. 1, 1191-94 (2011); Hicks v. Forest Preserve District, 
    677 F.3d 781
    , 789-90 (7th Cir. 2012); Cook v. IPC Int’l Corp.,
    
    673 F.3d 625
    , 628-29 (7th Cir. 2012); Brewer v. Board of
    Trustees of University of Illinois, 
    479 F.3d 908
    , 917-18 (7th
    Cir. 2007).
    As for the reference to “male bastion”—a term in-
    jected into the case by Blasdel’s lawyer—we note that
    20                                              No. 11-2075
    although the lawyer repeatedly states that her client
    was the only woman faculty member in the physiology
    department, there was another one and she had tenure.
    And remember that Surmeier had hired Blasdel with
    great enthusiasm, only to be disappointed by her per-
    formance at Northwestern.
    Blasdel also asks us to infer sex discrimination from a
    procedural error in Northwestern’s rejection of her
    internal appeal from her tenure denial. Long v. Teachers’
    Retirement System, 
    585 F.3d 344
    , 352-53 (7th Cir. 2009);
    Rudin v. Lincoln Land Community College, 
    420 F.3d 712
    , 723
    (7th Cir. 2005); Weinstock v. Columbia University, supra, 
    224 F.3d at 45
    . The statement by the chairman of the appeals
    panel that Blasdel’s “appeal does not sufficiently allege
    grounds of appeal within the stated jurisdiction of the
    University Faculty Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure,
    and Dismissal Appeals Panel . . . [and that therefore he
    would] not be convening an appeal body to adjudicate
    [her] charges” was indeed mistaken. The faculty hand-
    book states that a “faculty member denied . . . tenure” may,
    if he or she believes that the denial was based on con-
    siderations “not demonstrably related to the faculty
    member’s performance,” including discrimination based
    on sex, “file a written appeal with the University Faculty
    Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Dismissal Ap-
    peals Panel,” as Blasdel did. But the procedural bobble
    by the appeals panel’s chairman, who was remote from
    the process that resulted in the denial of tenure for
    Blasdel (he was a music professor), is insufficient to
    create a triable issue. See Qamhiyah v. Iowa State University
    of Science & Technology, 
    supra,
     
    566 F.3d at 746-47
    ; Weinstock
    No. 11-2075                                                 21
    v. Columbia University, supra, 
    224 F.3d at 45
    ; Zahorik v.
    Cornell University, supra, 
    729 F.2d at 93-94
    . Blasdel doesn’t
    allege that the dismissal of her appeal was a Title VII
    violation. There is no indication that the music professor
    is prejudiced against women scientists.
    She also asks us to infer sex discrimination from the
    fact that Mark Bevan, who applied for tenure at the same
    time she did, applied three years before his tenure deadline
    and only six years into his academic career—and his
    application was granted. There is no indication that she
    and Bevan were competing for a single tenure slot and
    therefore that the grant of tenure to him was necessarily
    a rejection of tenure for her. It thus is not a case of a male-
    female face-off won by the male. Nor is the evidence
    considered as a whole that she was better qualified
    for tenure than he. He had been the lead author on six
    articles during his time at Northwestern, compared to
    Blasdel’s one. He had been successful not only at ob-
    taining external funding—six grants to her two (the first
    being the grant she’d received at Boston University and
    that had been used up during her first months at North-
    western, and the second the only grant she got while
    at Northwestern, and it was not renewed)—but also
    and critically in renewing his grants, which she had
    failed to do. He had received enthusiastic letters from
    senior neuroscientists in support of his tenure applica-
    tion (recall Lavker’s reservations about Blasdel’s external
    letters of support). And Blasdel herself had described
    him as a world-class anatomist—at the top of his
    field—and though a layperson would think an anatomist
    different from a physiologist, Blasdel described his work
    22                                              No. 11-2075
    as very similar to hers. Bevan testified in his deposition
    that their approaches were so similar that it wouldn’t
    have made sense for them to collaborate on research
    papers—collaboration is more productive when the
    collaborators have (at least slightly) different approaches.
    It is not a ground for suspicion that despite being
    younger and not having published in as prestigious
    journals, Bevan was preferred for tenure over her.
    His frequency of publication while both were at North-
    western (and remember that they were hired at the
    same time) was higher than hers, and more consistent
    over time; there was no indication as there was with
    her of lagging productivity. He was also more active in
    presenting his research to the scholarly community. And
    unlike her he was an excellent “grantsman.” These
    are all vital considerations to a university science depart-
    ment.
    Blasdel complains finally about the grant of tenure to
    another man, Lee Miller. Her lawyer says that “Blasdel’s
    publication record was far superior to Miller’s.” That is
    an overstatement, like the lawyer’s ungrounded assertion
    that the record contains “palpable evidence of Surmeier’s
    blatant gender bias.” Blasdel had published 23 articles
    to Miller’s 20, but his rate of publication was rising
    while hers was falling. He had garnered greater external
    recognition, had many more research grants, and was
    in much greater demand as an external reviewer of
    other scientists’ papers—yet had received his Ph.D., and
    begun his academic career, three years later than
    Blasdel had.
    No. 11-2075                                          23
    On the record compiled in the lengthy discovery con-
    ducted in this case, no reasonable jury could infer that
    Blasdel was denied tenure because she is a woman.
    Summary judgment was therefore rightly granted in
    favor of the university.
    A FFIRMED.
    7-19-12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2075

Citation Numbers: 687 F.3d 813, 2012 WL 2927763, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14770, 115 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 837

Judges: Bauer, Hamilton, Posner

Filed Date: 7/19/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

Authorities (28)

University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity ... , 110 S. Ct. 577 ( 1990 )

Sundaram v. Brookhaven National Laboratories , 424 F. Supp. 2d 545 ( 2006 )

Adelman-Reyes v. Saint Xavier University , 500 F.3d 662 ( 2007 )

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. , 120 S. Ct. 2097 ( 2000 )

Staub v. Proctor Hospital , 131 S. Ct. 1186 ( 2011 )

Whaley v. City University of New York , 555 F. Supp. 2d 381 ( 2008 )

Cynthia J. Fisher, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. ... , 70 F.3d 1420 ( 1995 )

Donna Zahorik, Judith Long Laws, Antonia Glasse and ... , 729 F.2d 85 ( 1984 )

Usha Vakharia, M.D. v. Swedish Covenant Hospital, Nancy ... , 190 F.3d 799 ( 1999 )

Lourdes C. Vanasco v. National-Louis University , 137 F.3d 962 ( 1998 )

Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba v. ... , 412 F.3d 731 ( 2005 )

Fradus Lee Anderson v. University of Wisconsin , 841 F.2d 737 ( 1988 )

Cook v. IPC International Corp. , 673 F.3d 625 ( 2012 )

melvin-i-urofsky-paul-smith-brian-j-delaney-dana-heller-bernard-h-levin , 216 F.3d 401 ( 2000 )

Hicks v. FOREST PRESERVE DIST. OF COOK COUNTY, IL , 677 F.3d 781 ( 2012 )

Morales-Cruz v. University of Puerto Rico , 676 F.3d 220 ( 2012 )

Grutter v. Bollinger , 123 S. Ct. 2325 ( 2003 )

Janine Rudin v. Lincoln Land Community College , 420 F.3d 712 ( 2005 )

Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff's Department , 666 F.3d 444 ( 2012 )

yong-qian-sun-v-the-board-of-trustees-of-the-university-of-illinois , 473 F.3d 799 ( 2007 )

View All Authorities »