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

Chapter 4 - Proving Disparate Treatment Discrimination
4.500 McDonnell Douglas prima facie case
4.530 Prima facie cases listed by most common case types
4.532 Promotion, demotion and transfer prima facie case

5^th Circuit

In Krystek v. University of Southern Mississippi, 164 F.3d 251, 257 (5th Cir. 1999), the court explained:

In Tanik v. Southern Methodist University, 116 F.3d 775 (5th Cir. 1997), we recently set forth the necessary elements for establishing that a denial of tenure amounts to discrimination. "The plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2) he was qualified for tenure, and (3) he was denied tenure in circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination." Id. at 775.

In Tanik, the court further noted:

   Other circuits have recognized that tenure decisions in colleges and universities involve considerations that set them apart from other kinds of employment decisions. Those factors are: (1) tenure contracts require unusual commitments as to time and collegial relationships, (2) academic tenure decisions are often non-competitive, (3) tenure decisions are usually highly decentralized, (4) the number of factors considered in tenure decisions is quite extensive, and (5) tenure decisions are a source of unusually great disagreement.

   Tenure decisions are not, however, exempt from judicial scrutiny under Title VII. To prove a prima facie case, a plaintiff may be able to show "departures from procedural regularity", "conventional evidence of bias on the part of individuals involved", or that the plaintiff is found to be qualified for tenure by "some significant portion of the departmental faculty, referrants or other scholars in the particular field".

Tanik, 116 F.3d at 776 (footnotes omitted).