Cal State Northridge Gaskell V University Of Kentucky Case Brief Please have this case I’m attaching briefed it case about employment law called Gaskell. bookshelf.vitalsource.com
gaskell berry johnson v. fluor – Google Search
eTextbooks | Rent or Buy Online Textbooks | VitalSource
VitalSource Bookshelf: Business Law II, Langvardt et al. 17th ed.
+
Gaskell v. University of Kentucky
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124572 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2010)
< !!! ♡
C
In 2007, the University of Kentucky (UK) commenced a search for the founding director of its new astronomical observatory.
Martin Gaskell applied for the position and, initially, was regarded by the Search Committee as the leading candidate. He
was far more qualified and experienced than any of the other applicants. At the time of his application, Gaskell worked at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), where he had secured funding for, had overseen the design and construction of, and
eventually ran the student observatory.
The Search Committee conducted an initial round of phone interviews with Gaskell and several other candidates. Following
the phone interviews, the committee ranked Gaskell first among the candidates.
Gaskell’s candidacy hit some snags, though. When Michael Cavagnero, the Chair of the Department of Physics & As-
tronomy and a member of the Search Committee, contacted Gaskell’s supervisor at UNL, he learned that Gaskell had caused
some conflict at UNL because he was sometimes obstinate. In addition, members of the Search Committee discovered articles,
lecture notes, and public statements by Gaskell revolving around the theme of “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.”
These raised concerns that Gaskell was a “creationist.” Several Search Committee members perceived that Gaskell blended
religious thought with scientific theory, which they believed would adversely affect his ability to perform the outreach functions
of the job.
Cavagnero again contacted Gaskell’s supervisor at UNL and asked him whether Gaskell’s personal religious beliefs had
interfered with his duties in the classroom and in the community at UNL. According to the supervisor, a handful of students
had mentioned in their teacher evaluations that it was refreshing to have a professor who believed in God, but that otherwise,
Gaskell's views on religion had not interfered with his work.
Cavagnero also asked some of his colleagues to read Gaskell’s work to determine if it was “good science.” Notably,
members of the UK Biology Department participated in this review and determined that Gaskell’s writing included scientific
306
口
6 Aa
Aa »
bookshelf.vitalsource.com
gaskell berry johnson v. fluor - Google Search
eTextbooks | Rent or Buy Online Textbooks | VitalSource
VitalSource Bookshelf: Business Law II, Langvardt et al. 17th ed.
© !!!
statements about evolution that showed a fundamental lack of appreciation for the scientific method and for well-established
scientific principles. The biologists ultimately told Cavagnero that they would not work with one of these types of individuals”
if he was hired to direct the observatory.
UK ultimately hired Timothy Knauer, a former student and employee of UK's Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Although UK concedes that Gaskell had more education and experience, it contends that it hired Knauer because he demon-
strated more of the qualities that UK wanted in its Observatory Director.
Gaskell sued UK claiming that he was not hired because of his religion in violation of Title VII. Both parties moved for sum-
mary judgment
Q
C
Forester, Senior Judge
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “[i]t shall be
an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discharge
any individual, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with
respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employ-
ment, because of such individual's... religion.” The term “religion”
is defined to include “all aspects of religious observance and prac-
tice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is
unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's ... religious
observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the
employer's business.”
As in any other discriminatory discharge or refusal to hire case,
the plaintiff can establish that he was discharged or not hired on the
basis of his religion through direct or indirect means. Direct evidence
is evidence which, if believed, “requires the conclusion that unlaw-
ful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer's
actions.” Direct evidence “does not require the factfinder to draw
any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment
action was motivated at least in part by preiudice against members
burden, then the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that the legitimate reasons offered were not true reasons but
were a pretext for discrimination.
UK argues that it hired a different candidate for the Observa-
tory Director for reasons that have nothing to do with Gaskell's
religion. Because Gaskell has failed to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that UK's reasons were a pretext for discrimina-
tion, UK contends that, based on McDonnell Douglas analysis,
Gaskell's claims must be dismissed.
Although UK argues that the McDonnell Douglas framework
applies to this case, Gaskell contends that he has presented direct ev-
idence of discrimination. The record contains substantial evidence
that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue
of his religion (as Gaskell calls it) or his scientific position (as UK
calls it) became an issue. Specifically, he points to the e-mail writ-
ten by [Professor Thomas] Troland, the Search Committee Chair,
to Cavagnero just days prior to the Search Committee's vote to rec-
ommend Knauer for the position and thereby reject Gaskell. The
e-mail, with the subject line “The Gaskell Affair,” states:
6 Aa »
307
口
A
bookshelf.vitalsource.com
+
© !!!
Q
C
gaskell berry johnson v. fluor - Google Search
eTextbooks | Rent or Buy Online Textbooks | VitalSource
VitalSource Bookshelf: Business Law II, Langvardt et al. 17th ed.
any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment
ommend Knauer for the position and thereby reject Gaskell. The
action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members e-mail, with the subject line “The Gaskell Affair,” states:
of the protected group.” Evidence which in and of itself suggests
It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gas-
that the person or persons with the power to hire, fire, promote, or
kell will be offered the job despite his qualifications that
demote the plaintiff were animated by an illegal employment crite-
stand far above those of any other applicant. Other reasons
rion amounts to direct proof of discrimination. Remarks to the ef-
will be given for this choice when we meet Tuesday. In the
fect that “I won't hire you because you're a woman,” or “I'm firing end, however, the real reason why we will not offer him the
you because you're not a Christian,” are obvious examples of direct job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are un-
evidence of discrimination. However, other, less obvious remarks, related to astronomy or to any of the duties specified for this
have been found to be direct evidence of discrimination. Remarks position. (For example, the job does not involve outreach in
and other evidence that reflect a propensity by the decisionmaker to
biology.) ... If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so
evaluate employees based on illegal criteria can suffice as direct evi-
breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and
dence of discrimination even if the evidence stops short of a virtual
experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We
could easily choose another applicant, and we could content
admission of illegality. Proof of this nature supports the inference
ourselves with the idea that Martin's religious beliefs played
that a statutorily prescribed factor such as religion was at least a
little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it
motivating factor in the adverse employment action at issue.
is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we ex-
If there is no direct evidence of discrimination, then courts rely cluded Martin on any basis other than religious....
on the framework established in the Supreme Court in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this frame- Certainly, Troland, who was chair of the Search Committee,
work, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving by a preponderance participated in the interviews of the candidates, discussions of
of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. If the plaintiff the committee, [and] e-mail exchanges involving the process
is able to prove a prima facie case, then the burden shifts to the played an obvious and important role in the decisionmaking
defendant “to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason process. As he explained to Patty Bender, the University Equal
for the employee's rejection.” If the defendant is able to carry this Employment Officer who investigated [a] complaint of religious
307
6 Aa »
bookshelf.vitalsource.com
gaskell berry johnson v. fluor - Google Search
eTextbooks | Rent or Buy Online Textbooks | VitalSource
VitalSource Bookshelf: Business Law II, Langvardt et al. 17th ed.
+
O jij e
discrimination submitted by [another member of the Search
Committee]:
I was part of the entire process that led to this decision.
I know what observatory committee members said in meet-
ings and privately, not just their e-mail comments. I know
that the university (not your office!) chose an applicant with
almost no relevant experience over one with immense expe-
rience in virtually every aspect of the observatory director's
duties. And I know that this choice was made (to a significant
extent) on grounds that have nothing to do with the job as
advertised nor with the job as envisioned by our department.
C
His comments, if true, are direct evidence of religious
discrimination.
Additional direct evidence of religious discrimination can be
found in the deposition of Cavagnero, who stated that the de-
bate generated by Gaskell's website and his religious beliefs, was
an “element” in the decision not to hire Gaskell. Also, [another
professor) testified in his deposition that Gaskell’s “views of re-
ligious things in relation to reconciling what is known scientifi-
cally about how the world developed and what is represented in
the Bible” was “a factor” in his decision not to support Gaskell.
[Yet another] committee member stated in his deposition that
religion was an “underlying theme in everything we discussed."
Gaskell points to other evidence that suggests a propensity by
the Search Committee to evaluate employees based on illegal cri-
teria, including an e-mail by a Search Committee member stating:
“Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with-
but potentially evangelical.” That same member also said, "If the job
ผ
sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employ-
ment practice, even though other factors also motivated the prac-
tice. [T]he purpose and effect of this section was to eliminate
the employer's ability to escape liability in mixed-motives cases
by proving that it would have made the same decision in the ab-
sence of the discriminatory motivation.” As the Sixth Circuit
has stated, “in mixed-motive cases, a plaintiff can win simply by
showing that the defendant's consideration of a protected char-
acteristic ‘was a motivating factor for any employment practice,
even though other factors also motivated the practice.”” The
McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply
to mixed-motive claims. ... [T]o survive a defendant's motion
for summary judgment, a Title VII plaintiff asserting a mixed-
motive claim need only produce evidence sufficient to convince
a jury that: (1) the defendant took an adverse employment action
against the plaintiff; and (2) “race, color, religion, sex, or na-
tional origin was a motivating factor” for the defendant's adverse
employment action.
There is no dispute that UK's decision not to hire Gaskell was
an adverse employment action. The issue, then, is whether Gas-
kell’s religion was “a motivating factor.” As set out above, Gas-
kell has presented direct and other evidence which, if believed,
establishes that his religion was a factor in UK's employment de-
cision. However, UK has also come forward with other evidence
that religion was not a motivating factor in its decision to hire
Knauer. UK notes that the only question that was asked of Gas-
kell regarding his statement on evolution was posed by Cavag-
nero who was concerned that Gaskell would violate UK policy
308
6 Aa »
bookshelf.vitalsource.com
+
o jij E
C
gaskell berry johnson v. fluor - Google Search
eTextbooks | Rent or Buy Online Textbooks | VitalSource
VitalSource Bookshelf: Business Law II, Langvardt et al. 17th ed.
AUTI nu pismu umvut unu vuc viucn WINNI, II Vivou,
[Yet another] committee member stated in his deposition that
establishes that his religion was a factor in UK's employment de-
religion was an “underlying theme in everything we discussed.”
cision. However, UK has also come forward with other evidence
Gaskell points to other evidence that suggests a propensity by
that religion was not a motivating factor in its decision to hire
the Search Committee to evaluate employees based on illegal cri-
teria, including an e-mail by a Search Committee member stating:
Knauer. UK notes that the only question that was asked of Gas-
“Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with-
kell regarding his statement on evolution was posed by Cavag-
but potentially evangelical.” That same member also said, “If the job
nero who was concerned that Gaskell would violate UK policy
were solely about physics and astronomy and within the university I
by representing his own opinion as that of the University should
he link his university webpage to his personal webpage contain-
would strongly agree with you that Martin's beliefs on biology and
religion don't matter a hoot and should not figure in the discussion
ing religious material. UK contends that the Search Committee
at all.” The negative implication is clear: because the job was not
did not act improperly when it considered Gaskell’s comments
about evolution because Gaskell made those comments public
solely about physics and astronomy within the university, Gaskell's
beliefs on biology and religion do matter.
not only during his 1997 lecture at UK, but also by posting his
Gaskell’s allegations, when considered together and taken as
lecture notes on his webpage. UK also contends that it did not
true, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his religious beliefs
consider Gaskell’s religious beliefs, only his public comments
were a substantial motivating factor in UK's decision not to hire
that there were scientific problems with the theory of evolution.
him. With the direct evidence of religious discrimination pres-
According to UK, the Search Committee was concerned that
these publicly expressed views would impair Gaskell's ability to
ent in this case, it is not necessary for the Court to engage in the
serve effectively as Observatory Director.
McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
UK's motivation for its decision not to hire Gaskell is very fact
intensive and difficult to determine at the summary judgment stage.
Accordingly, based on Gaskell's presentation of direct evi- Because UK has come forward with more than a scintilla of evi-
dence of discrimination, UK's motion for summary judgment dence to support its argument that religion was not a motivating fac-
will be denied. The Court now turns to Gaskell’s motion for par- tor in its decision, Gaskell’s motion for partial summary judgment
tial summary judgment.
will be denied.
In 1991, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was amended to in-
clude ... Section 2000e-2(m). This section provides as follows: Gaskell's motion for partial summary judgment is denied;
an employer commits an unlawful employment practice “when UK's motion for summary judgment is denied; and this matter
the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, remains pending.
***
♡
308
口。
6 Aa »
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
