University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC
Encyclopedia
University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that neither common law evidentiary privilege, nor First Amendment academic freedom protects peer review materials that are relevant to charges of racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions.
Justice Blackmun
wrote the unanimous opinion.
, was denied a tenure position by a tenure review board. Tung alleged that she had been the victim of sexual harassment by the board chairman, and that the board discriminated against her Chinese-American heritage.
Tung then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). The EEOC has broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The EEOC requested, subpoenaed, then sued to enforce its subpoena of Tung's tenure review file and the tenure review files of five male faculty members. The University refused to provide review materials, citing constitutional protection under the First Amendment and the societal interest inherent in the peer review process.
for enforcement of its subpoena. The court entered a brief enforcement order. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the decision, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari
limited to the compelled-disclosure question.
or the First Amendment, against disclosure of peer review materials that are relevant to charge or racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions.
The EEOC argued that it possesses a broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and that any infringement of the University's First Amendment rights is permissible because of the substantial relation between the EEOC's request and the overriding and compelling state interest in eradicating invidious discrimination.
The Court finds that the University does not meet the high burden needed to create a new common law evidentiary privilege, as the privilege sought does not promote sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence. The Court is satisfied that Congress
, in granting power to the EEOC, considered academic freedom and declined to carve out an evidentiary privilege for it. And that, while "confidentiality is important to the proper function of the peer review process," the "costs associated with racial and sexual discrimination in institutions of higher learning are very substantial."
The Court notes the special status of universities in a democratic society, and the "essential freedom" that a university possesses "to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach." However, the Court holds that the EEOC's subpoenas are not intended or do not in fact direct the content of university discourse toward or away from particular subjects or points of view. Nor is the EEOC "providing criteria [the University] must use in selecting teachers, [or] preventing the University from using any criteria it may wish to use, except those--including race, sex, and national origin--that are proscribed under Title VII."
The Court holds that the University is not entitled to a common law evidentiary privilege protecting tenure review materials, and that the EEOC subpoena process does not infringe any First Amendment right enjoyed by the University.
Arguments regarding particularized necessity of access are not addressed, not are the EEOC's arguments regarding its Congressional mandate and the compelling state interest of eliminating employment discrimination.
Justice Blackmun
Harry Blackmun
Harold Andrew Blackmun was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994. He is best known as the author of Roe v. Wade.- Early years and professional career :...
wrote the unanimous opinion.
Overview
Rosalie Tung, then an associate professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
The University of Pennsylvania is a private, Ivy League university located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. Penn is the fourth-oldest institution of higher education in the United States,Penn is the fourth-oldest using the founding dates claimed by each institution...
, was denied a tenure position by a tenure review board. Tung alleged that she had been the victim of sexual harassment by the board chairman, and that the board discriminated against her Chinese-American heritage.
Tung then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an independent federal law enforcement agency that enforces laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, perceived intelligence,...
(EEOC). The EEOC has broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The EEOC requested, subpoenaed, then sued to enforce its subpoena of Tung's tenure review file and the tenure review files of five male faculty members. The University refused to provide review materials, citing constitutional protection under the First Amendment and the societal interest inherent in the peer review process.
Procedural history
The EEOC applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of the original 13 federal judiciary districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789...
for enforcement of its subpoena. The court entered a brief enforcement order. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts for the following districts:* District of Delaware* District of New Jersey...
affirmed the decision, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
limited to the compelled-disclosure question.
Issue
The question presented was whether a university enjoys a special privilege, grounded either in the common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
or the First Amendment, against disclosure of peer review materials that are relevant to charge or racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions.
Parties' arguments
The University argued for recognition of a common law privilege against disclosure of confidential peer review materials, and for a First Amendment right of academic freedom against disclosure of the documents. In either case, the University sought a requirement of judicial finding of particularized necessity of access, beyond showing of mere relevance, before peer review materials could be disclosed to the EEOC.The EEOC argued that it possesses a broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and that any infringement of the University's First Amendment rights is permissible because of the substantial relation between the EEOC's request and the overriding and compelling state interest in eradicating invidious discrimination.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Blackmun, writing for a unanimous Court, declines to create a new privilege against the disclosure of peer review materials, and holds that the First Amendment right of academic freedom will not be expanded to protect the materials from disclosure.The Court finds that the University does not meet the high burden needed to create a new common law evidentiary privilege, as the privilege sought does not promote sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence. The Court is satisfied that Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
, in granting power to the EEOC, considered academic freedom and declined to carve out an evidentiary privilege for it. And that, while "confidentiality is important to the proper function of the peer review process," the "costs associated with racial and sexual discrimination in institutions of higher learning are very substantial."
The Court notes the special status of universities in a democratic society, and the "essential freedom" that a university possesses "to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach." However, the Court holds that the EEOC's subpoenas are not intended or do not in fact direct the content of university discourse toward or away from particular subjects or points of view. Nor is the EEOC "providing criteria [the University] must use in selecting teachers, [or] preventing the University from using any criteria it may wish to use, except those--including race, sex, and national origin--that are proscribed under Title VII."
The Court holds that the University is not entitled to a common law evidentiary privilege protecting tenure review materials, and that the EEOC subpoena process does not infringe any First Amendment right enjoyed by the University.
Arguments regarding particularized necessity of access are not addressed, not are the EEOC's arguments regarding its Congressional mandate and the compelling state interest of eliminating employment discrimination.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 493
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court