University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 182 (1990)
- Written by David Schleider, JD
Facts
In 1985, the University of Pennsylvania (the University) (defendant), a private university operating the Wharton School of Business, refused to give tenure to Rosalie Tung (plaintiff), an associate professor. Tung filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that she had been subject to sexual harassment, was equally qualified for tenure as her male peers, and had been denied tenure because the University did not want a Chinese American woman as a tenured professor. As part of an investigation into Tung’s complaint, the EEOC issued a subpoena to the University demanding files related to Tung’s peer review for tenure, as well as files related to the review of the other male candidates. The University asked the EEOC to exclude certain documents from the subpoena, including confidential letters, evaluations, and internal deliberations by the evaluators and department chair who had reviewed Tung and the other applicants. Even though the EEOC declined to exclude the items from the subpoena, the University refused to turn over the requested materials. The EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking enforcement of the subpoena. The court granted an enforcement order, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal. The University appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.