|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth11/1/2004
uch activities at the University, should they be appointed. Cummings admitted that he did not address his professional and academic accomplishments, in any detail, either in his application or in his interview. Cummings asserted that he was unaware of the need to address the issue even though it had been so stated in the advertisement to which he responded. Cummings also testified that he wanted to get a job at a college or university near his home where he could "earn probably less than $50,000" but would have the summers off and less stress - what he termed "bigger breaks." R.R. 658a - 659a. These are not the words of one committed to scholarship. The Search Committee apparently did not share the Dean's concerns about Cummings' lack of commitment to scholarship because it recommended Cummings. However, its vote in favor of Cummings was only the first, not the last, step in the University's process for offering a candidate a position.
The trial court's decision is fully consonant with the McDonnell Douglas analytical model for determining whether an employee has been the victim of unlawful sex discrimination. Further, we cannot say that no two reasonable minds can agree with the trial court's factual findings. Eichman, 824 A.2d at 311. The trial court credited the Dean's testimony that it was Cummings' lack of scholarly growth, not his gender, that motivated the University. The trial court accepted as credible the Dean's statement that Cummings was offered a temporary position to allow him to cure his shortcomings as a scholar during his initial term with the University. Cummings tried to show that the University's proffered reason for the hiring decision was unworthy of credence, but ultimately, the trier of fact must decide which party's explanation of the employer's motivation it believes. U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 (1983). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the University, it is manifest that the trial court's denial of Cummings' requests for post-trial relief must be upheld.
For these reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court.
AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 26 th Judicial District (Columbia County Branch) dated February 5, 2004 in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Show All Case Laws Pennsylvania PEO
|