Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College District
934 F.2d 1104 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a disparate treatment discrimination case, a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment by introducing evidence of being subjected to different working conditions combined with derogatory, stereotyped remarks made by superiors, as this is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding discriminatory intent and pretext.
Facts:
- Edyna Sischo-Nownejad, an art instructor at Merced Community College aged 52-58, was the only female and one of the oldest full-time faculty members in her department.
- From 1981 to 1986, division chairpersons failed to consult Sischo-Nownejad about her course preferences, reassigned popular courses she had developed to themselves, and gave her undesirable assignments, contrary to the college's standard practice with other faculty.
- From 1982 to 1988, Sischo-Nownejad was denied necessary teaching supplies while other faculty members received all they needed.
- In 1981, after Sischo-Nownejad complained about her treatment, her division chairperson, defendant Janssens, filed an ethics complaint against her, resulting in an admonishment in her personnel file.
- Throughout the period, college officials made numerous statements indicating bias, including referring to Sischo-Nownejad as an 'old warhorse,' calling her students 'little old ladies,' and making sarcastic remarks about 'you women's libbers.'
- On two occasions, the college president, defendant Martineson, urged Sischo-Nownejad to retire, a suggestion that was repeated by the dean of personnel.
Procedural Posture:
- Edyna Sischo-Nownejad filed suit against Merced Community College and its officials in the United States District Court.
- The complaint alleged claims of age and sex discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state laws.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that Sischo-Nownejad had failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination.
- Sischo-Nownejad, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a disparate treatment discrimination case present sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment motion by showing differential treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment combined with derogatory, stereotyped remarks made by her superiors?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt, J.
Yes. A plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion in a disparate treatment case where she demonstrates differential treatment and provides evidence of discriminatory animus. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must offer evidence that gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination, and the amount required is 'very little.' Here, Sischo-Nownejad showed she was subjected to different treatment than other faculty regarding class assignments, supplies, and monitoring. This evidence, combined with the derogatory and stereotyped remarks made by her superiors (e.g., 'old warhorse,' 'women's libbers') and suggestions she retire, is sufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory intent. This same evidence also serves to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons are pretextual. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate, as the ultimate question of an employer's intent is a factual one that requires a 'searching inquiry' by the fact-finder.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a low evidentiary standard for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in disparate treatment cases within the Ninth Circuit. It clarifies that a combination of adverse employment actions and evidence of biased remarks by superiors is potent evidence that will almost always create a triable issue of fact for a jury. This holding makes it more difficult for employers to get discrimination claims dismissed at an early stage, thereby increasing the likelihood that such cases will proceed to trial or be settled. The case solidifies the principle that the evidence used to establish a prima facie case can also be the evidence that demonstrates the employer's stated reason for its actions was pretextual.
