Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Significance, Two Claims Lead To One Question, No Academic Institutional Privilege, Impact, Further Readings

petitioner decision court common

Petitioner

University of Pennsylvania

Respondent

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Petitioner's Claim

That the university has special privilege grounded in either common law or the First Amendment to prohibit disclosure of peer review materials relevant to racial, sexual, or national origin discrimination claims in tenure decisions.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Rex E. Lee

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Kenneth Winston Starr, U.S. Solicitor General

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Thurgood Marshall, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

9 January 1990

Decision

In a unanimous decision, upheld the court of appeals finding that neither common law nor a First Amendment academic freedom privilege protects peer review tenure materials.

Related Cases

  • Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).
  • Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
  • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
  • Jaffe v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996).

Additional Topics

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Further Readings

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Significance

The Supreme Court found universities had no special legal privilege for withholding court-requested materials. Academic freedoms indirectly protected by the First Amendment were individual freedoms, not institutional. The decision opened tenure-granting decisions to greater public scrutiny, protecting employees from discrimination based on sex, age, and national origin. The Court also maintained a…

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Two Claims Lead To One Question

Penn based its arguments on two claims: a common law privilege claim and a First Amendment academic freedom right. Because peer review is central to the functioning of universities, Penn asked the Court to recognize a "common law privilege against disclosure of confidential peer review materials." The common law claim was grounded in federal rules of evidence which provide that "the privilege of a…

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - No Academic Institutional Privilege

Unanimously, the Supreme Court upheld the court of appeals by finding neither a common law nor a First Amendment academic freedom privilege for peer tenure review materials. The Court directed Penn to comply with the subpoena and provide the EEOC all requested peer review information. In considering the common law privilege claim, the Court noted that Congress, in extending Title VII coverage to e…

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Impact

The Court's ruling affected all university-level tenure and review committee decisions. It specified whose files could be looked at, by whom, and for what purpose. It placed a high degree of responsibility on university faculty to ensure an academic environment free of discrimination. The Penn case demonstrated the Court's reluctance in establishing new common law privileges. Afterwards, the Ameri…

Wanda Holloway Trial: 1991 - Tapes Lead To Conviction, Plea Agreement Ends Second Trial [next] [back] United States v. Sokolow - Significance, A Brief And Unusual Trip, A Successful Police Operation, An Invasion Of Privacy

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or