The opinion of the court was delivered by: PENN
JOHN GARRETT PENN, United States District Judge MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff filed this case, in which she contends that she has been the victim of sex and race discrimination, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The case came before the Court for non-jury trial. This Memorandum constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52.
1. Plaintiff is a white female faculty member of the University of the District of Columbia.
2. The University of the District of Columbia (UDC) is an institution of higher education in the District of Columbia, run by the District of Columbia government.
3. All Presidents of the University of the District of Columbia have been black males. All Provosts of UDC have been black. There is currently one white Dean at UDC.
4. Of the sixteen department chairpersons who report to Dean Butler only two are not black.
5. On or about June 15, 1984, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based upon her race and sex with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
6. Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from the U.S. Department of Justice dated February 14, 1985. Plaintiff filed the current action within ninety days of receipt of the right to sue letter.
UDC draws its faculty members from the United States and from foreign countries.
8. As of June 30, 1981, there were 1449 full time employees at UDC, of whom 1096 or approximately 75.6% were blacks, 260 or approximately 17.9% were whites; 589 or approximately 40% were black females and 86 or approximately 6% were white females.
9. As of June 30, 1982, there were 1438 full time employees at UDC, of whom 1099 or approximately 76.2% were black, 599 or approximately 5.2% were white females.
10. For the period October, 1980 to June, 1981, approximately 84% of the new hires at UDC were black, 8% were white and none were white females.
11. For the period July, 1981 to June, 1982, approximately 87.8% of the new hires at UDC were black, 7.3% were white and none were white females.
12. For the period March, 1982 to June, 1982, UDC's review of applicant flow chart revealed that of the persons who applied for jobs at UDC, approximately 75% were black and 17% white.
13. Of the persons hired by UDC between July 1981 and June 1982, approximately 87.8% were blacks and approximately 7.3% were whites.
15. At all times pertinent to this litigation prior to March, 1983, Joseph G. (Tex) Gathings was Chairman, Department of Communicative and Performing Arts, UDC, now Mass Media Performing Arts.
16. At all times pertinent to this litigation after March, 1983, Ann J. Covington was Chairman, Communications Sciences Department, UDC, now Communication Arts & Sciences.
17. At all times pertinent to this litigation after March, 1983, Elaine Bowman was Assistant to the Chairman, Communication Sciences Department, UDC, now Communication Arts & Sciences.
18. At all times pertinent to this litigation, Willie Faye Garrett was a member of the faculty at UDC; prior to March, 1983 in the Department of Communications Sciences, now Communication Arts & Sciences.
19. At all times pertinent to this litigation, Robert E. West was a member of the faculty, UDC, in the Department of Performing Arts.
20. At all times pertinent to this litigation, Dr. Marie Racine was Associate Dean, College of Liberal and Fine Arts, UDC.
21. Mr. Gathings, Ms. Covington, Ms. Bowman, Ms. Garrett, Mr. West, and Ms. Racine are black.
22. At all times pertinent to this litigation, Dr. John Butler served a Dean, College of Liberal and Fine Arts, UDC. The speech program, in which plaintiff was a faculty member, was within the College of Liberal and Fine Arts.
23. Dr. Broadus N. Butler served as Vice President of Academic Affairs at UDC at times pertinent to this litigation. Dr. Butler made recommendations concerning promotion and salary/step increases for UDC faculty members.
24. In 1983, the speech program of the Department of Communicative and Performing Arts at UDC included, as faculty members, plaintiff, Dr. Cleo Gray, Ms. Maxine Legall and Ms. Willie F. Garrett.
25. On March 1, 1983, administration of the speech program was transferred from the Department of Communicative and Performing Arts to the Department of Communication Sciences. The name of the latter was changed to the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences.
26. The plaintiff, is a faculty member within the bargaining unit of faculty of UDC.
27. UDC Bargaining unit facility may be evaluated for various time periods, for example, the calendar year, the academic year, or a period longer than an academic year. The evaluation for a particular time period may affect an academic year contract for the following year.
28. Evaluations of UDC bargaining unit faculty are conducted by an evaluation Committee comprised of other faculty members in the evaluee's department. Each faculty member is responsible for submission to the Evaluation Committee of a complete and organized evaluation folder. UDC does not require any particular quantity of documents to be included in the evaluation folder. If a faculty member desires that specific activities relating to (1) scholarship and professional growth, (2) university service, and (3) professionally related community service, be considered in the evaluation procedure, the faculty member must submit verifiable evidence of the activities with the evaluation profile sheet. Each faculty member is responsible for submission of his own folder and decides what materials are to be included in the folder. It is the responsibility of the peer Evaluation Committee to consider a faculty member's folder and evaluate him.
29. The Dean may concur or non-concur in the Evaluation Committee's evaluation. Where the Dean intends to non-concur, he first submits to the Committee a notice of intent to non-concur. The Evaluation Committee then may reevaluate the folder and resubmit it to the Dean. The Dean may concur or non-concur.
31. Dean J. Butler, of the College of Liberal and Fine Arts, has formulated criteria which he considers in deciding whether to recommend a faculty member for a step increase. For the academic year 1978-79 evaluation period, his criteria were stated in the memoranda, (1) May 31, 1979, J. Butler to the Record, "Rationale for Dean's Recommendations for Merit Increases", and (2) September 10, 1979, J. Butler to Department Chairman "Basis of Dean's Consultation with Vice-President on Merit Increases." For the fall 1979 - December 31, 1980 evaluation period, Dean Butler's criteria were stated in the memorandum, May 22, 1981, J. Butler to Chairpersons and Faculty, "Faculty Evaluations - Dean's Review and Recommendations." For the calendar year 1981 evaluation period, Dean Butler's criteria were stated in the memorandum, April 6, 1982, J. Butler to Keith, "Faculty Evaluation revisions." For the calendar year 1982 evaluation period, Dean Butler's criteria were stated in the memorandum, May 31, 1982, J. Butler to College Faculty, "promotions and Step Raises: Dean Recommendations." For the calendar year 1983 evaluation period, Dean Butler's criteria were stated in the memorandum, April 17, 1984, J. Butler to Faculties "Recommendations for 1984-85 Contracts".
32. During academic year 1978 to 1979, plaintiff had a contract with UDC for the position of Professor, Step 8 ($ 28,265 salary).
33. For the evaluation period academic year 1978-79, the Department Evaluation Committee gave plaintiff an evaluation score of 91.8 percent.
34. The Evaluation Committee included Judith Baldinger, Chairperson, and Daphne Northington.
35. Dean J. Butler did not concur in the plaintiff's evaluation for the academic year 1978-79 because there was insufficient documentation to support the rating of 25% ...