Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Krystek v. University of Southern Mississippi, 164 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. January 14, 1999)

Keywords: Title VII (sex discrimination, denial of tenure)

Introduction: Dennis Krystek sued the University under Title VII for sex discrimination after he was denied tenure. A jury found in favor of Krystek. The University appeals the district court's denial of its Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit reverses the jury verdict in favor of Krystek.

Facts: Krystek was denied tenure based upon his failure to publish scholarly work.

Law:

1. Direct evidence
   1. Krystek offered evidence that the interim dean of his department opined that men and women are held to different standards in tenure decisions.
   2. But the Fifth Circuit holds that his opinion was a stray remark because the interim dean did not participate in the ultimate decision. He did not attempt to enforce a different standard and the ultimate decision was made two years after the remark.
   3. The case provides a definition of "direct evidence."
2. Indirect evidence
   1. Based on the teachings of Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools, 75 F.3d 989 (5th Cir. 1996), Krystek must provide substantial evidence that the University's proffered reason was pretextual and the real reason was based on gender.
   2. Krystek presented evidence concerning two female professors, one who was in a tenure-track position and one who was not.
   3. The female in the nontenure-track position  was not similarly situated.
   4. The female in the tenure-track position had published scholarly work before being awarded tenure.
3. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit reverses the jury verdict.
4. Click here to see actual case.