Title: McIsaac v. University of Vermont

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

McIsaac v. University of Vermont (2003-241); 177 Vt. 16; 853 A.2d 77

2004 VT 50

[Filed 04-Jun-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 50

                                No. 2003-241

  Mary Lee McIsaac	                         Supreme Court

          	                                 On Appeal from
      v.	                                 Labor Relations Board

  University of Vermont
                                                 March Term, 2004

  Richard W. Park, Chair

  Edwin L. Hobson, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Jeffrey J. Nolan of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for
    Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., 
            and Zimmerman, D.J.,  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.    Grievant Mary Lee McIsaac appeals an opinion
  and order of the Vermont Labor Relations Board (Board) which found that the
  University of Vermont (UVM) did not violate any rules or regulations when
  it denied her application for tenure.  Grievant argues that the Board erred
  by: (1) incorrectly applying a mixed motive analysis to a sex
  discrimination claim; (2) failing to require UVM to follow its own
  procedures; and (3) failing to disqualify a member of the Board because he
  had previously served as a member and chair of the UVM Board of Trustees. 
  We affirm.  
   
       ¶  2.  The Board made the following findings of fact.  Grievant was
  a faculty member in the history department at UVM from fall 1994 until
  spring 2001.   She was a tenure-track assistant professor who was hired to
  teach East Asian history with a focus on China and Japan.  Tenure-track
  professors at UVM are subject to three reviews.  The first, done in the
  second year, includes a review done by both the department and the dean of
  the College of Arts and Sciences [dean].  The second, conducted two years
  later, is considerably more extensive.  It begins with a review by the
  department and then is followed by a review by the dean who receives advice
  from the College Faculty Standards Committee.  The professor is then
  reviewed by the provost with the advice of the Senate Faculty Affairs
  Committee.  The case is finally considered by the president who renders a
  final decision.  The process for the third and final review is similar to
  the second review's; however, after the final review the professor is
  either granted tenure and promoted to the rank of associate professor or
  denied tenure and a further teaching contract.  The final review, which can
  culminate in a life-time faculty appointment at UVM, is complex and
  multilayered with a thorough review at each level.  At every level of
  consideration, written comments about the applicant are submitted, and the
  applicant either is or is not recommended for tenure.  As the applicant's
  file proceeds through the process, the written comments from the previous
  levels are included. 
   
       ¶  3.  During each review, the professor is evaluated in three
  areas: teaching, service and scholarship.  In each review, including the
  final one, grievant received positive evaluations for teaching and service;
  it was clear that she was a valued teacher who made significant
  contributions to the UVM community.  However, at every review the
  decision-makers expressed concerns about grievant's scholarship.  Following
  her first review, the College Faculty Standards Committee, although
  unanimously recommending grievant for reappointment, wrote, "The committee
  is concerned about the apparent lack of scholarly projects as [grievant's]
  C.V. does not indicate any work in progress."  The dean expressed similar
  concerns stating, 

    [Grievant] should indeed continue to use her dissertation to form
    a substantial body of published work.  However, in my view, it
    would be a mistake to publish her thesis research as both articles
    and as a book.  She should decide which is best and proceed
    accordingly.  The reason for this advice is that I believe in
    order to win a promotion and a permanent position at the
    University, faculty must demonstrate that their scholarly work is
    moving beyond the thesis.  If too much time is spent in publishing
    both articles and a book drawn from the thesis there is little
    left over to demonstrate future promise which, in my view, is the
    most important consideration for promotion and tenure. 

  Grievant did not receive a copy of the dean's comments until eighteen
  months after they were written.  

       ¶  4.  During the time between her first and second review, grievant
  was working on both articles and a book, and was giving conference
  presentations.  She also had become involved in editorial activities for a
  newsletter that focused on Chinese urban history.  As part of her second
  review, grievant submitted a curriculum vitae which listed her scholarly
  accomplishments following her first review.  Included on the list were the
  following: an article to be published in a conference volume, an article
  submitted to The American Historical Review - the preeminent scholarly
  journal in grievant's field, and three submissions to the Chinese urban
  history newsletter.  
   
       ¶  5.  The comments grievant received following her second review
  echoed those in the first.  The College Faculty Standards Committee stated,
  "In the area of scholarship the Committee found [grievant's] record to be
  somewhat thin."  The Committee went on to list grievant's scholarly
  accomplishments including the work she was doing towards publishing a book
  and concluded by stating, "The Committee recognizes the value of these
  projects and wishes to stress the importance of their coming to fruition by
  the time of consideration for tenure and promotion."  In the same vein, the
  dean explained, "While [grievant's] work is promising indeed. . . it is
  important to point out that she needs to have her research accepted for
  publication either in the book that is currently underway or in a series of
  articles if she is to be successful in obtaining promotion and tenure in
  her next personnel action."  Similarly, the Faculty Affairs Committee that
  advised the provost, who approved grievant's reappointment, stated, "[The
  Committee] strongly reiterates the dean's concerns regarding publication
  rate."  

       ¶  6.  In the spring of 1998, grievant became pregnant.  Consistent
  with UVM policies she requested a leave from her teaching duties in spring
  1999 and a one-year extension of her tenure clock.  Grievant's requests
  were granted, and her tenure review was set for the 2000-2001 academic
  year, rather than the 1999-2000 academic year.  Grievant submitted her
  application for tenure in the fall of 2000.  As part of her final tenure
  dossier, grievant listed her scholarship to date.  The list included two
  articles in peer reviewed journals, one introduction to a special issue of
  a journal, one newsletter article, one encyclopedia entry and one
  dictionary entry.  She also listed a book manuscript as a work in progress
  that was being reviewed by two prestigious university presses.  
   
       ¶  7.  Grievant's tenure review began at the department level.  Each
  UVM department handles a candidate's tenure review in a slightly different
  manner.  During grievant's tenure application period, the history
  department's review process was in flux.  Prior to grievant's
  consideration, the chair of the department would appoint a two-person
  tenure review committee.  The primary job of the committee was to solicit
  letters from outside evaluators regarding the candidate's scholarship.  For
  grievant's review, because of problems in a prior candidate's evaluation, a
  two-person committee was not appointed; rather the chair of the department
  handled this responsibility.  In addition to soliciting letters, the chair
  was also responsible for helping grievant compile her tenure dossier. 
  Moreover, after departmental consideration was complete, it was the chair's
  responsibility to make a final tenure recommendation to the dean. 

       ¶  8.  On October 30, 2000, the history department met to consider
  grievant's case.  When considering a tenure case it is typical for
  department members to enter a written vote as to whether an applicant
  should receive tenure.  In grievant's case, the department vote was split:
  eight voted for tenure, eight voted against.  Those voting against grievant
  found her scholarly record thin and voted to deny tenure primarily on that
  basis.  Of the eight faculty members voting against grievant, four made
  some reference in their written comments to the extension grievant received
  on her tenure clock for maternity reasons.  After the faculty members
  voted, the chair was required to make a recommendation to the dean.  

       ¶  9.  In her initial vote as a member of the department faculty, the
  chair concluded that grievant should be denied tenure because her
  scholarship did not meet the basis for tenure and promotion.  After
  reconsideration and the faculty voting, the chair changed her conclusion
  and recommended grievant for tenure "with strong reservations."  In her
  final recommendation, the chair described grievant's teaching as "clearly
  excellent" and found her service was "solid."  With regard to her
  scholarship, the chair stated, "[Grievant's] publication record (as
  distinct from her research record) remains essentially the same as it was
  at her last reappointment review."  The chair went on to describe the book
  grievant had in progress and noted that while the readers at the two
  university presses were impressed with its quality, "extensive revisions"
  were suggested and grievant did not yet have a book contract.  The chair
  also explained that the external reviewers asked to evaluate grievant's
  scholarship were uniformly positive in their assessments. 
   
       ¶  10.  After the chair completed her evaluation and gathered the
  evaluations of her colleagues, grievant was given an opportunity to
  respond.  In her response, grievant explained that some of her colleagues
  were inaccurate in their assessment of her scholarship.  Grievant also
  responded that some of her colleagues had inappropriately raised and
  considered the one year extension on her tenure clock.  Grievant accurately
  pointed out that the extension was not to be viewed as an "extra" year to
  research and write, and that she should not be penalized in any way for
  receiving the maternity extension.  After grievant submitted her rebuttal
  statement, her file was forwarded to the College Faculty Standards
  Committee.  As explained above, at each successive level of review the
  evaluation(s) and rebuttal statement from the prior levels' reviews are
  included in the applicant's tenure review file.  Therefore, included in her
  file were the written votes from the history department, four of which made
  some reference to the extension grievant received on her tenure clock for
  maternity reasons, and grievant's rebuttal statement.  

       ¶  11.  The College Faculty Standards Committee voted three to two in
  favor of granting grievant tenure and promotion to associate professor. 
  The committee, although voting to grant tenure, expressed the reasons for
  the split decision,

    Those voting in favor believed that the quality of [grievant's]
    scholarship outweighed concerns about its appearance in print;
    those voting against found that her scholarly output did not meet
    the standards for tenure and promotion set out by her Department
    and the Dean of the College at her last appointment. 

  Grievant's file was then forwarded to the dean.
   
       ¶  12.  The dean voted against granting grievant tenure.  The dean
  found grievant's teaching and service satisfactory for tenure, but
  determined that she had not met the requirements in scholarship.  In a
  lengthy evaluation, the dean first described grievant's scholarship record
  to date explaining that although grievant had demonstrated promise as a
  scholar, this promise had yet to materialize in print.  The dean found
  grievant's failure to garner a book contract particularly troubling and
  noted that throughout her tenure review-at every level-there were
  significant reservations about her productivity as a scholar.  The dean
  concluded by finding that grievant had not met the standards for tenure and
  promotion and stated, "[Grievant's] scholarly record simply does not meet
  the standards we expect." 

       ¶  13.  In a footnote to her evaluation, the dean addressed grievant's
  concerns about her colleagues' statements indicating that they had
  considered her maternity extension in their evaluation.  The dean
  explained,

    [Grievant] worries that the extension was used by some of her
    colleagues as a reason to ask for more than what is otherwise
    normally required.  I agree this would have been inappropriate but
    do not believe that her colleagues were making this argument.
    [Grievant] should not be asked to do more because her tenure clock
    was stopped-what is the point of stopping the clock if that were
    the case-but neither can she be held to a lesser standard on the
    same grounds for which additional time had been offered and
    accepted.  We have been very careful in the College of Arts and
    Sciences to make accommodations for the extra burden of maternity,
    but once that accommodation is made, maternity cannot be used as a
    reason for doing less. 

       ¶  14.  Grievant's file was next considered by the Faculty Affairs
  Committee that voted eight to two against granting grievant tenure. All
  agreed that grievant's teaching and service were strong, but were split on
  her scholarship.  The committee's statement accounted for the split
  explaining,

    Those voting in favor felt that the record of scholarship is
    sufficient to  award tenure, citing in particular the extremely
    positive external review letters.  Those voting against felt the
    candidate's current record of scholarship is insufficient for a
    positive tenure recommendation.

  After consideration by the Faculty Affairs Committee, grievant's file was
  forwarded to the university's provost.  Like those who had previously
  considered her file, the provost concluded that grievant's teaching and
  service met the university's standards for tenure, but found her record of
  scholarship inadequate.  The provost, in addition to evaluating grievant's
  scholarship record, explained that he had reviewed her rebuttal statement
  and stated, "[n]oteworthy were her comments about maternity leave and how
  its length and nature had been misinterpreted by certain faculty in her
  department.  This issue was no factor whatever in my conclusion."  

       ¶  15.  Following the provost's decision to deny her tenure and
  promotion, grievant appealed to the acting president of the university for
  a reversal.  Grievant argued that both the dean and the provost denied her
  tenure because they relied on "inaccuracies and misunderstandings" that had
  occurred at the department level.  The president denied grievant's appeal
  finding that both the dean and the provost had reached the conclusion that
  grievant's scholarship record was inadequate independently.  That is,
  neither the dean nor the provost relied on the written votes that made
  reference to grievant's maternity extension in their decisions.  

       ¶  16.  After the president denied her appeal, grievant filed a
  grievance with the Faculty Grievance Committee.  In this grievance,
  grievant made nine complaints about the process used in the tenure
  decision.  The committee unanimously sustained five of the nine complaints
  and recommended that grievant's tenure be reconsidered beginning at the
  department level.  The president rejected the committee's recommendation
  and subsequent request for reconsideration.  Grievant then appealed this
  decision to the Board.

       ¶  17.  In her grievance to the Board, grievant made the same nine
  allegations made to the Faculty Grievance Committee.  They are: (1) as a
  result of antagonism over the procedures for selecting outside evaluation
  scholars, the history department chair abused her authority by presenting a
  case against tenure in violation of Section 270.5 of the Officers' Handbook
  of the University of Vermont [Officers' Handbook]; (2) the chair's conduct
  in undertaking to present grievant's case for tenure and secretly opposing
  it violated "even rudimentary standards of good faith and fair dealing" and
  denied "the peer review guaranteed by the UVM tenure procedure;" (3) the
  chair and part of the department faculty failed to apply the history
  department guidelines governing tenure evaluation with respect to
  scholarship, and the chair's standards represented a misreading of
  standards set by the dean at the second review; (4) in their votes, some
  faculty members penalized grievant for failure to publish during her
  maternity leave and thereby, engaged in gender discrimination, violating
  Officers' Handbook Sections 40.1, 40.2 & 270.5(c) (FN1); (5) although the
  chair was fully conversant with the peer review standards for the journals
  in which grievant had published, she failed to inform the department
  faculty of these standards and denied grievant the full benefit of her
  peer-reviewed publications; (6) the chair and others improperly considered
  the reports of anonymous readers of grievant's book manuscript to determine
  her scholarship and, therefore, denied her peer review of her scholarly
  achievements; (7) the chair, without a rational basis, stated that
  grievant's publication record at tenure review remained essentially as it
  was at the second review; (8) without rational basis, members of the
  faculty of the department stated that grievant's scholarship had not
  progressed adequately beyond her dissertation in violation of Officers'
  Handbook Section 270.5; and (9) by issuing a nominally positive tenure
  recommendation although she actually opposed grievant's tenure application,
  the chair improperly reduced grievant's appeal rights, and her action
  abused the process and lacked a rational basis.  The grievance complaint
  contains a summary that reiterated grievant's claim that the tenure review
  was "based on the discriminatory application of the rules" in violation of
  her rights, and that the denial of tenure was "an abuse of authority, . . .
  [without] a rational basis, and was discriminatory based on sex."  The
  summary cited Officers' Handbook Section 270.5 as the rule violated. 

       ¶  18.  At the commencement of the hearing before the Board, grievant
  moved to recuse one of the members of the hearing panel, Edward Zuccaro, a
  former member and chair of the UVM Board of Trustees.  The members of the
  panel unanimously denied the motion.  Following a lengthy hearing, in which
  each side presented witnesses and documentary evidence, the Board dismissed
  all of grievant's claims finding that she had failed to prove that any
  university rule or regulation had been violated.  The Board refused to
  consider claims raised for the first time in grievant's post-hearing brief
  because it found that grievant was required to raise all allegations in her
  initial filing.  See In re Grievance of Whitney, 168 Vt. 209, 215,