Presseisen v Swarthmore College 442 F Supp 593

Presseisen v. Swarthmore College, 442 F. Supp. 593 Kiera French, Caroline Kane, Matt Mc. Phail, and Taylor Nefussy

The Legal Background ● ● ● ● In civil cases, plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt (like in criminal cases) Preponderance of the evidence = greater weight of the evidence presented finds in favor of the plaintiff o defendant is more liable than not o not how much evidence is presented by either side, but what pieces of evidence are found to be most valuable in deciding the case Title VII Class Action Suit → referring to Civil Rights Act of 1964 o Title VII of the Civil Rights Act states that employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex is prohibited International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977) set the standard for Title VIII Class Action Suits o proof of discriminatory motive = critical o type of discrimination = disparate treatment o plaintiff must prove disparate treatment to win Prima facie- accepted as correct until proven otherwise Precedence for statistics in employment discrimination cases established in Hazelwood School District v. United States(1977) The verdict: the defense is not liable

Statistical Evidence of Prosecution-from the years of 1966 -1976 at Swarthmore College ● Difference between men and women from receipt of highest degree to appointment to Instructor at Swarthmore Median Mean Std Dev Men 2. 5 yrs 3. 2 yrs 2. 36 yrs Women 3 yrs 5. 7 yrs 5. 2 yrs ● Difference between men and women from receipt of highest degree to appointment to Assistant Professor at Swarthmore Median Mean Std Dev Men 3 yrs 3. 3 yrs 2. 18 yrs Women 4 yrs 5. 8 yrs 4. 82 yrs ● ● Difference between men and women from receipt of degree to appointment to Associate Professor at Swarthmore Median Mean Std Dev Men 7 yrs 7. 6 yrs 3. 77 yrs Women 9 yrs 16. 4 yrs 14. 03 yrs Difference between men and women from receipt of highest degree to appointment to Professor at Swarthmore Median Mean Std Dev Men 13 yrs 13. 9 yrs 5. 54 yrs Women 15 yrs 14. 7 yrs 2. 52 yrs

Prosecution Continued ● ● ● Other statistical evidence included: o In 1975 Swarthmore tenured 16. 7% female faculty while the national average was 34 -42% o From 1971 -75, tenured female faculty dropped from 6 to 4, while men tenured increased from 58 to 60. “Dr. de. Cani was unable to make any statistical examination of the above data as far as statistical significance is concerned. He did comment, however, that, in his view, the above exhibits demonstrated that, for each rank, the average time to promotion or initial appointment from receipt of highest degree was longer on the average for women than for men on the faculty at Swarthmore, from 1966 -67 to 1975 -76” (Barbara 1). Besides statistics, the prosecution claimed that the criteria for promotion were “subjective and vague” allowing the chairman to have wide discretion when choosing people for tenure and the ability to make discriminatory decisions.

Defense 1) Inactives problem: who is included in “rank study” 2) Dr. Meier: wait times are poor metric, as they are dependent variable of factors 3) Wait time to promotion doesn’t account for previous experience before degree 3) Dr. Hollister: no control variables in analysis (measure of ability, life interruptions, etc. . . )

Defense, continued Dr. de. Cani’s results were not statistically significant Iversen’s results also not statistically significant Dr. Iversen’s (Swarthmore) statistical study: Associate Professor → Full Professor Women: 5. 3 years, Men: 5. 7 years Associate Professor (not yet promoted) Women: 3. 2 years, Men: 4. 5 years Assistant Professor → Associate Professor Women: 4. 2 years → Men: 4. 5 years. Length of time: Instructor → Assistant Professor. Women: 2. 2 years, Men: 2 years Time as Instructor for those not yet promoted Women: 3 years, Men: 1. 7 years.

Ruling 1) The Court has jurisdiction over the case because of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2) Presseisen did not establish that Swarthmore discriminated against her on the basis of sex in regards to her employment 3) As a class action suit, Presseisen did not establish a prima facie case that Swarthmore systematically discriminated against female faculty members because of their sex in regards to hiring, firing recruitment, and appointment on a classwide basis 4) As a class action suit, Presseisen did not establish a prima facie case that Swarthmore systematically discriminated against female faculty members because of their sex in regards to tenure, promotion, or salary on a classwide basis. a) Even if this was proven, the defendant adequately rebutted the prima facie claim 5) Ruled in favor of the defense against Presseisen as an individual and as an EEOC class representative

Precedents and Concluding Thoughts -It’s difficult to sue an institution without a strong, class action suit -financial responsibility -burden of proof -Continuing Discrimination -Under title VII, must be filed within 90 days -Presseisen cited one instance -The large disparity between tenured men and women was probably due to the recency of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 - it wasn’t always illegal to discriminate - is it fair to include data about these tenured professors in statistics about sex discrimination? -“If Swarthmore did discriminate against women, was Barbara Presseisen the appropriate person to reward with tenure because she was the one who brought this suit? The case might have been settled for monetary damages, but I think that this question, which was never explicitly raised, was always present. ” - Murray Gerstenhaber, Statistics in the Court

Bibliography "Barbara Z. PRESSEISEN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, and U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. SWARTHMORE COLLEGE, Theodore Friend, President, Stephen G. Lax, Chairman, Charles E. Gilbert, Chairman, Alice K. Brodhead. " Presseisen v. Swarthmore College, 442 F. Supp. 593. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. Gerstenhaber, Murray. "STATISTICS IN THE COURTS. " STATISTICS IN THE COURTS. University of Pennsyvania, 24 Jan. 1999. Web. 12 Nov. 2014. PRESSEISEN v. SWARTHMORE COLLEGE | Leagle. com. " PRESSEISEN v. SWARTHMORE COLLEGE | Leagle. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.