Adams v. Trustees UNC Wilmington, et al. - National Association of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

quantity, and that the parameters she had set out were "strictlyadvisory and not a guarantee" of a particular outcome. (Id. )In her deposition,former interim department chair Levyexplained that there was "no magic number" of publications forpromotion to full professor, and that the focus was on what theprofessor had done since the last promotion. (Levy Dep. 112( " [T] he total number would be less important than the numbersince the last promotion.").) Pressed to specify a range, Levyallowed only that the required number of publications was "morethan one," but did not indicate whether she meant "per year" orfor some other period of time, again reiterating that there was"no magic number." (Id. at 113.) 7university's separate expectations of applicants for promotionto full professor. Plaintiff also offers no support for hisequating the phrase "higher expectation," as used by Cook, with"exceeding the standard" for promotion. (Id.)"Cd t i nq this deposition testimony, plaintiff suggests thatLevy "looks for at least one publication since tenure." (Pl. ' sResp. Br. at 7.) Putting aside that "at least one" is not thesame as "more than one," the most plaintiff - friendly view ofLevy's comment is that "more than one" signified a bare minimumthreshold for promotion, not what Levy was "look [ing] for"(i.e., expected) from candidates for promotion. These commentsdo not contradict in any way the overwhelming record evidencethat there was no "magic number" or "safe" number of peerreviewedjournal articles, and that quality was more importantto tenure promotion decision than quantity. It is thereforeirrelevant whether Levy meant more than one per year or morethan one since the faculty member's most recent promotion, butfor the sake of resolving the instant motion the court willassume she meant the latter.14Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 146 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 14 of 39
Defendant Cook was required to decide whether to recommendpromotion after consultation with senior faculty. Arecommendation to promote plaintiff would allow the applicationto proceed to review by the Dean,Provost, Chancellor, and/orBoard of Trustees. On the other hand, Cook's recommendationagainst promotion would end the process.Before meeting with the department's senior faculty, Cooksolicited written comments from them on plaintiff's application.The court here summarizes the written evaluations with whichplaintiff takes issue.(Pl.'s Resp. Br. at 8-9, referring toRice Decl. Ex. 1, Cook Dep. Exs. D, G, I-L, Adams Decl. Apps. 45 . ) . 8Dr. John S. Rice ("Rice") believed that plaintiff wasstrong in the teaching category but that his research record wasless impressive.Rice was concerned that plaintiff's productionhad decreased since tenure, and he lamented the fact that allbut one of plaintiff's refereed publications were co-authored(noting that, in his experience,"a single authored articleoften requires more time and research effort than a co-authoredpiece," and that "[f]aculty reviewerstend to creditBPlaintiff also cites his declaration in support of hisresponse to defendants' motion. (Adams Decl. ~ 13.) Thisparagraph indicates that plaintiff produced five publicationsbetween his prior promotion and the comments in question, notfour as indicated in various professors' review comments. Thecourt assumes plaintiff's count is accurate in resolving theinstant motion.15Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 146 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 15 of 39
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4: against defendants in their officia
Page 5 and 6: The university undertook considerab
Page 7 and 8: their hope that the column and the
Page 9 and 10: Research: Plaintiff had one article
Page 11 and 12: on transphobic views to students."
Page 13: at large." (Id. ) For promotion to
Page 17 and 18: presentations. Levy also had proble
Page 19 and 20: Dr. Gary Faulkner ("Faulkner") comp
Page 21 and 22: faculty voted on plaintiff's applic
Page 23 and 24: On September 29, 2006, Cook sent an
Page 25 and 26: In making this determination, the c
Page 27 and 28: To prove his Title VII claim, plain
Page 29 and 30: or passed over for a promotion in f
Page 31 and 32: comparison of records to support a
Page 33 and 34: 1985) . Here, however, plaintiff's
Page 35 and 36: professional duties, plaintiff's in
Page 37 and 38: support plaintiff's contention that
Page 39: CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons

Adams v. Trustees UNC Wilmington, et al. - National Association of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?