Opinion ID: 1043112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Frederick’s First Application

Text: Although Metro’s denial of Dr. Frederick’s 2007 application forms the basis of her claim, her first application in 2006 sets the stage. In addition to her dossier and -4- curriculum vitae, Dr. Frederick submitted the Management Department Guidelines that were in effect in 2004 and 2005, despite the fact that the Guidelines had changed by the time that her materials were submitted in 2006. The first two levels of review (the Department Committee and Department Chair) recommended promotion. However, the remaining five levels of review did not. At level three, the School Committee observed that the lack of professional development (the gap in publishing from 1984 to 2006) outweighed the positive. At level four, Dean Cochran wrote: “I must concur with the school committee 6-0 vote against promotion . . . for the reason stated, the ‘body of work over her career is lacking a performance level commensurate with the rank of professor.’” Id. at 149. At level five, the Faculty Senate Committee also did not recommend the promotion. In particular, the Committee was aware “that the School of Business was seeking accreditation and the department’s guidelines reflected the requirements for professional development. Although Dr. Frederick was Department Chair during a portion of the timeframe under review, her service . . . did not limit or change the criteria for promotion to Professor.” Id. at 160. Finally, neither the Provost nor the President recommended promotion.