|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth11/1/2004
ma facie case did not relieve him of the burden of persuasion. The Human Relations Act did not alter the bedrock legal principle that one who alleges wrongdoing must supply the proof. Allegheny Housing, 516 Pa. at 131, 532 A.2d at 319.
Once the University proffered a legitimate reason for its employment decision, it became Cummings' burden to prove the reason was false. He tried to do so by showing that the University's explanation was unworthy of credence and that Cummings' gender more likely explained the University's decision. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05. Indeed, Cummings believes that his evidence showed that the trial court's verdict in favor of the University bore no rational relationship to the evidence. Stated otherwise, "no two reasonable minds" could disagree on this point. Eichman, 824 A.2d at 311.
The first inconsistency identified by Cummings relates to the Dean's reason for not offering Cummings a tenure track position. Cummings maintains that the terms for the student teacher supervisor position were revised only after the Dean learned of Dr. Wachter's complaints on August 24, 1994. Dr. Wachter was interviewed on August 2, 1994, and for a different position than Cummings. On August 12, 1994, Dr. Wachter was advised that she was not recommended for the position, and a male applicant was selected. On August 23, 1994, Dr. Wachter met with the University President; the next day she met with the Dean. At the end of August 1994, Dr. Wachter filed a complaint with the Human Relations Commission, and as of the date of her testimony on February 24, 2003, her discrimination case against the University was still pending. This chronology of events does not contradict the Dean's statement that he made his decision on August 18, 1994, that Cummings was not qualified for a tenure track position.
Next, Cummings maintains that the University's treatment of another male professor, Dr. Raymond Pastore, during the relevant time period corroborates Cummings' theory that it was a bad time for male applicants. Dr. Pastore was a candidate for a different position, who was recommended by the faculty. On August 25, 1994, his position changed from tenure track to a one-year temporary position. On September 7, 1994, the Dean stated to Dr. Pastore that the position was altered because two women were threatening to sue the University for improprieties in the hiring search. The trial court held that whether gender motivated another personnel decision of the University was irrelevant to whether it was the motivation in Cummings' case. This finding is reasonable.
Cummings next attacks the University's explanation by arguing that "scholarly growth" was not required in previous hires. Further he contends that the Dean's complaint about Cummings' lack of publication was a "fabrication."
In support, Cummings notes that Dr. Bonita Franks, a Department faculty member, was hired and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Show All Case Laws Pennsylvania PEO
|