EDUC 432

Jessie Opperthauser and Christine Studdiford

April 28, 1999

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 97-60598

"Dennis J. Krystek v. University of Southern Mississippi"

In 1988, the political science department of the University of Southern Mississippi (USM) hired Dennis J. Krystek as a visiting professor for one year only. After his first year was finished, Krystek was hired into the tenured track program as an assistant professor. At USM, there are strict criteria in order for a professor to attain tenure. According to USM tenure is "sustained quality performance in the three University missions of teaching, research or other creative activity, and service, with the expectation that the candidate will achieve a high level of performance in two of these categories." Research requires the publishing of scholarly work such as "books, monographs, chapters, essays, reviews and other scholarly work published by reputable journals, scholarly presses, and publishing houses that accept works only after rigorous professional review."

While in the tenured track, the candidate undergoes a regular series of reviews. When Krystek's case was reviewed, he was denied tenure due to the fact that he neglected to publish any "scholarly work". A year later, Krystek had published one article in the Lousiana Bar Journal, a University published journal, but he again was denied tenure. He was given two extra years to once again publish scholarly work. Unfortunately, after these two years, Krystek published only one more article in the same journal as before. Again, Krystek's case came up for review, and this time he was denied both a promotion and tenure.

After this denial, Krystek sued USM alleging discrimination based on gender, arguing that women were held to lesser standards. A jury reviewed his case, and found that USM violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. USM appealed the case for two main reasons. First, USM felt that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Secondly, USM maintained that Krystek had failed to file a timely complaint with the EEOC.

Because it was a case on appeal, the court's duty was to review the jury's fact-finding role in the lower court. Specifically, the court had to review the judge's denial of USM's Rule 50 motion to determine if substantial evidence supported Krystek's claims that he was denied tenure because he was a male. The court also had to determine whether or not USM's stated reason for denying him tenure was pretextual, that is, that it was on the pretext that he was male.

The court declared that, in considering the evidence in support of Krystek's claims, it "viewed all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict." The court gave Krystek the benefit of the doubt until it could find that his claims were not supported. Essentially, the circuit court needed to determine whether the evidence presented supported the jury's finding in favor of Krystek.

After reviewing all of the evidence presented, the court found that there was neither substantial evidence to rebut USM's stated reason for denying Krystek tenure nor substantial evidence to support a finding that Krystek's denial of tenure was motivated by his gender. The court outlined its reasons for finding Krystek's claims to be unfounded.

The court looked at its decision in Tanik v. Southern Methodist University (1997) to determine what qualifications are necessary for a plaintiff to claim protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a tenure case. In that decision, the court established that the plaintiff must show the following: First, he belongs to a protected group, which Krystek does, as a member of the male gender. Second, he was qualified for tenure, which Krystek was not. Third, he was denied tenure in circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination, which the evidence in this case did not show.

Therefore, because Krystek only met one of the three qualifications necessary to be protected under Title VII, the court decided that his claim was unfounded. The evidence clearly stated that Krystek failed to meet an established USM tenure requirement -- publishing scholarly work. There was no evidence that he was treated any differently from female tenure-track assistant professors in similar situations. Krystek could not point to a similarly situated assistant professor who was awarded tenure despite failing to publish scholarly work.

The evidence simply did not support the jury's finding for Krystek in the lower court. Title VII is designed to ensure that persons of different gender are treated equally. Krystek had been treated equally, and had been held to the same standards applied to every other tenure-track faculty member at the university. He could not seek refuge under Title VII simply because he was unable to meet the minimum requirements for tenure. He was basically trying to find a way to get out of doing what he was required to do. In conclusion, the court found that Krystek's denial of tenure was based fairly on his failure to meet the requirements, and had nothing to do with the fact that he is a male. There was insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in Krystek's favor. The court didn't address USM's argument that Krystek failed to file a timely EEOC complaint because it really doesn't matter since the finding was in favor of USM anyway. The district court's judgment was reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of USM.