|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth11/1/2004
then later promoted in 1991 to associate professor notwithstanding her lack of publications. Dr. Paulette Monchak was offered a job in August 1994 even though she did not have a track record of publications, as incorrectly asserted by the Dean at the hearing. Finally, in August 1994, Dr. Richard Graffius was offered a tenure track position even though his sole contribution to published scholarship was "The Official Punxatawney Phil Coloring Book."
Cummings' evidence about other personnel determinations, however, did not render the University legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason implausible. There are many explanations for Dr. Franks' promotion. She may have demonstrated a commitment to scholarship in one of the other ways identified by the Dean; it may also be that by the time Cummings was seeking employment, the University decided to demand more of those seeking a tenure track position. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act does not bar an employer from raising its standards for employment. The Dean erred in his recollection of whether Dr. Monchak had published, but many years and his retirement had intervened between the events and his testimony about them. It appears the Dean was simply mistaken in his belief that Dr. Monchak had published, but it does not mean that the publication standard was "fabricated" for this litigation. Cummings delights in lampooning the Dean's claim that a coloring book constitutes a scholarly publication. However, Dr. Graffius was seeking employment in the University's educational curriculum department not its physics department. More to the point, the Dean was clear in his recollection, presented under oath, that Dr. Graffius had expressed a commitment to scholarly growth and that Cummings had not. In any case, the Dean never claimed that a history of publications was the sine qua non of scholarship. He explained that scholarly growth included publications as well as a contribution to professional organizations and participations in other opportunities for peer review.
The trial court found that the Dean and the Department Chair both identified weaknesses in Cummings' credentials and development as a scholar. The Department Chair subsequently voted with the Department Faculty to recommend Cummings. This vote did not mean that his concerns about Cummings' candidacy expressed one week earlier to the Dean were unfounded. The Dean's recollection of the August 18, 1994, conversation with the Department Chair was not confirmed by the Department Chair. However, the Department Chair explained that nine years after the events in question, he could not precisely recall what was said. By contrast, the Dean's memory of the August 18, 1994, conversation was clear. The trial court found, as is the prerogative of the factfinder, that the Dean's recollection was credible.
The Dean expected Cummings and the other candidates to demonstrate scholarly achievements or an intention to pursue s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Show All Case Laws Pennsylvania PEO
|