University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC
Significance, Two Claims Lead To One Question, No Academic Institutional Privilege, Impact, Further Readings
University of Pennsylvania
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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
Date of Decision
9 January 1990
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.
- 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).
- Wanda Holloway Trial: 1991 - Tapes Lead To Conviction, Plea Agreement Ends Second Trial
- United States v. Sokolow - Significance, A Brief And Unusual Trip, A Successful Police Operation, An Invasion Of Privacy
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Further Readings
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Significance
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Two Claims Lead To One Question
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - No Academic Institutional Privilege
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias