* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-50732

Summary Calendar

ZBIGNIEW M. WOJCIK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CV-93)

April 2, 1997

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zbigniew M. Wojcik sued his former employer, the University of

Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), for employment discrimination under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended at 42 U.S.C.

§2000e, et seq. Wojcik, a native of Poland, alleges he was denied

tenure because of his national origin. The district court granted

summary judgment for the defendant. Wojcik appeals.

As is well known, in a Title VII case the plaintiff must first1 Zahorik v. Cornell University , 729 F.2d 85, 92 (5th Cir.

1984).

2 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802

(1973).

3 St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks , 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747-49

(1993).

4 Zahorik v. Cornell University , 729 F.2d 85, 92 2nd Cir.

1992); Kumar v. University of Massachusetts , 774 F.2d 1, 11 (5th

Cir. 1985). establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a

prima facie case in the context of a denial of tenure, 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 interference of discrimination. 1 If

the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, then he has raised a

presumption of discrimination and the burden shifts to the

defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason

for the challenged action. 2 If the defendant meets this burden by

presenting evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, would

support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of

the employment action, then the presumption raised by the

plaintiff’s prima facie case esse ntially disappears, and the

plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden, which has never left

him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated

against him. 3

Other circuits have recognized th at tenure decisions in

colleges and universities involve consi derations that set them

apart from other kinds of employment decisions. 4 Those factors

are: (1) tenure contracts require unu sual commitments as to time5 Zahorik , 729 F.2d at 92-93.

6 Id. at 93-94. and collegial relationships, (2) academic tenure decisions are

often non-competitive, (3) tenure decisions are usu ally 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. 5

Tenure decisions are not, however , exempt from judicial

scrutiny under Title VII. To prove a prima facie case, a plaintiff

may be able t o 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 porti on of the departmental faculty,

referrants or other scholars in the particular field”. 6

In this c ase, the district court carefully considered the

special considerations outlined in Zahorik and concluded, based on

und isputed facts, that there was no evidence that unlawful

discrimination played a role in UTSA’s decision to deny tenure to

Wojcik. Based on our de novo review of the record, we find that

the summary judgment was appr opriate. Accordingly, the district

court is AFFIRMED.