Clark v. Claremont University Center
California Court of Appeal
8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151 (1992)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Reginald Clark (plaintiff) was an African American assistant professor in the English Department at the Claremont Graduate School (Claremont), a subdivision of the Claremont University Center (defendant). Clark applied for tenure during his fifth year of teaching, but tenure was ultimately denied after a long review process. Claremont’s review process was multitiered: (1) review by the academic department; (2) review by an academic committee; (3) a recommendation to the board of trustees by the dean of faculty, executive dean, and president; and (4) the ultimate decision by the board of trustees. Claremont, as a research institution, placed heavy emphasis on scholarly achievement. However, there were no exact guidelines. Some faculty members stressed quality over quantity. Claremont also considered student evaluations and teaching performance. During his time at Claremont, Clark was told by several faculty members that he would probably receive tenure if he published his book. Clark eventually published his book right before applying for tenure and received positive reviews. Additionally, Clark published and presented several papers and taught multiple seminars, for which he received significant support and praise. Clarke’s review process was marred by several comments that he overheard faculty and committee members make while conferring during meetings of his academic department, including: “White people have rights too,” and “we are not under any obligation to have Blacks, because we are a private college.” The faculty member who made the former comment wrote a negative letter to the academic committee. Some faculty expressed support for Clark because of his race. No vote at any stage of the process was unanimous. There was no evidence of discriminatory remarks made by members of the academic committee or the president, though both had access to reports from the meetings. Clark filed a discrimination suit under California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act. A jury sided with Clark and awarded one million dollars in compensatory damages. In doing so, the jury found that Clark was denied tenure because of his race. Claremont raised multiple issues on appeal, including insufficiency of the evidence. Claremont argued that even if discriminatory remarks were made, they did not affect the ultimate decision, because the review process was compartmentalized.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ortega, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.