Penk v Oregon - Penk v. Or. State Bd. of Higher Educ. 816...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Penk v. Or. State Bd. of Higher Educ. 816 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1987) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: After nine months of trial in which were examined 58 individual claims of sex discrimination in salary, promotion, and tenure practices by the Oregon state system of higher education, the court granted individual relief in three claims, but found against the class plaintiffs and denied all other claims against the state board of higher education. The plaintiffs appeal as a class, and individually. We affirm. Twenty-two women faculty members sued the defendant board under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Title VII claims were tried. The § 1983 claims were dismissed during pretrial proceedings. The case proceeded as a "pattern and practice" disparate treatment case, comparing the board's treatment of women faculty and male faculty in terms of rank, pay, promotion, tenure and administrative appointments. Statistical evidence played a major part in the trial. The trial judge prepared a 487 page memorandum addressing the factual and legal issues. Within a document of that size, disappointed litigants are likely to find a number of points with which to disagree. This case is no exception. The plaintiffs' failures of proof were not for want of effort. The trial produced 25,000 pages of testimony and rooms full of exhibits. The subject matter ranged over the history of women in academic callings. The court heard about the economics of supply and demand, and the depressing effect of tenured, high salaried senior faculty, who are frequently older males, upon the salaries of junior faculty, who are frequently females, during times of taxpayer parsimony and shrinking budgets. After the parties rested, the court determined that the state system of higher education had not intentionally discriminated against women. There is no substantial dispute that historical disparity existed. However, historical disparity does not give rise to a successful Title VII claim. The court found that, at worst, the state's efforts to bring its female employees into parity with its male employees had been impeded more by external economic factors than by lack of effort by the board to redress historic imbalances. Because we are satisfied that the trial court's findings of fact are not subject to reversal as clearly erroneous under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), see Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573-75, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518, 105 S. Ct. 1504 (1985), and because we can conceive of no useful purpose in detailed rehearsal of the evidence, we will take up as briefly as possible the principal legal questions presented by the appeal.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 I. BURDENS OF PROOF, PERSUASION AND PRODUCTION Plaintiffs assert that the court erred in allocating and applying the respective burdens in the class case. They contend that the court required too much of them and too little of the board. In essence, their contention is that the court erroneously neglected to adhere
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

Penk v Oregon - Penk v. Or. State Bd. of Higher Educ. 816...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online