Tingley-Kelley v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
677 F. Supp. 2d 764, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1083 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Direct evidence that an academic admissions committee stereotyped a female applicant based on her status as a mother with family responsibilities is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for a Title IX sex discrimination claim, even without comparative evidence of how similarly situated male applicants were treated.
Facts:
- Kimberley Tingley-Kelley applied for admission to the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine (Penn Vet) six times between 2002 and 2007 and was rejected each time.
- After several rejections, Associate Dean of Admissions Malcolm Keiter provided post-denial counseling, encouraging Tingley-Kelley to continue applying and advising her on how to strengthen her application.
- For her 2004 application, Tingley-Kelley received an interview during which committee members questioned her ability to handle the program's rigors while caring for a young child and having a husband on active military duty.
- Following the 2004 interview, a student representative told Tingley-Kelley that Penn Vet 'probably would not waste a spot on a woman who has a baby and a husband on active duty.'
- Per Dean Keiter's advice for her 2006 application, Tingley-Kelley listed 'stay at home mother' as an occupation and discussed her parental status in her personal statement.
- During the 2006 application review, one committee member, Dr. Jill Beech, noted concerns about how Tingley-Kelley would perform 'esp. w/family, etc.' and that she 'would be at school w/2 young children.'
- Another reviewer for the 2006 application, Dr. Ben Martin, wrote that for Tingley-Kelley, it 'will be a tough row to hoe.'
- After her 2006 rejection, Tingley-Kelley sent a letter to Penn Vet alleging discriminatory treatment during her interviews. She was rejected without an interview the following year.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 2008, Kimberley Tingley-Kelley (Plaintiff) sued the University of Pennsylvania (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The complaint alleged three counts: gender discrimination under Title IX, retaliation under Title IX, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Following a period of discovery, the University of Pennsylvania filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all three counts, asking the court to dismiss the case without a trial.
- The district court heard oral argument on the motion and permitted the parties to file supplemental briefs.
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 evidence that a university admissions committee expressed concerns about a female applicant's ability to handle a rigorous program due to her family responsibilities constitute direct evidence of 'sex-plus' discrimination under Title IX sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Pratter, J.
Yes, direct evidence that a university's admissions committee considered an applicant's gender plus her status as a mother in its decision-making process creates a genuine issue of material fact for a Title IX sex discrimination claim, sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment. The court found that notes on Tingley-Kelley's application review forms and questions asked during her interviews regarding her childcare responsibilities could demonstrate that admissions committee members discriminated against her by stereotyping her as a busy mother who would struggle with the program. Citing persuasive precedent from other circuits like Back v. Hastings and Chadwick v. WellPoint Inc., the court held that stereotyping women as caregivers can, by itself, be evidence of an impermissible, sex-based motive. Such stereotyping constitutes direct evidence of discrimination, which shifts the case to the 'mixed-motives' analysis from Price Waterhouse. Under this framework, the plaintiff only needs to show that gender was a 'motivating factor' in the decision. Once this is shown, summary judgment is inappropriate, and it is up to a jury to decide whether the university would have made the same decision absent the discriminatory motive.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the viability of 'sex-plus' discrimination claims under Title IX in the academic admissions context. It clarifies that direct evidence of stereotyping based on motherhood and family responsibilities can be sufficient to take a case to a jury, even if the plaintiff's objective qualifications are borderline and even without evidence of how similarly situated fathers were treated. The ruling lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs with direct evidence of stereotyping, shifting the burden to the institution to prove it would have made the same decision anyway. This precedent makes it more difficult for educational institutions to obtain summary judgment when there is documented evidence of decision-makers considering an applicant's family status in a stereotypical manner.
