A performance review ended with a professor out of a job, and the employer defending itself in court. The problem? Remarks about maternity leave, inconsistent flexibility, and suspicious timing after a discrimination complaint. The appellate court said a jury should hear the case.
TL;DR: A finance professor at a public college alleged gender, pregnancy, and national-origin discrimination after being removed from an MBA program and having her contract non-renewed. Most claims were dismissed, but the Third Circuit revived her gender discrimination and retaliation claims over the non-renewal, citing evidence that a Promotion and Reappointment Committee (PRC) said her childbirth-related schedule change had “in effect, provided her with an additional seven weeks of paid maternity leave,” denied her blended teaching request post-childbirth while approving remote teaching for male professors, and may have acted in retaliation shortly after she complained internally.
📄Read the full opinion here
From schedule request to non-renewal
In 2016, a public college hired a tenure-track finance professor. In late 2017, after becoming pregnant, she asked to teach her Spring 2018 courses in a “blended” format. The dean denied the request, even though two male professors had taught fully online from abroad, and instead gave her a later-starting schedule.
In 2018, she was removed from an MBA program she helped develop, with leadership citing disputes over course content and materials. That December, she complained to the college’s EEO officer and said she had “initiated a filing” with the EEOC.
On March 11, 2019, she emailed more details and said she would soon file a formal charge. Three weeks later, the Promotion and Reappointment Committee (PRC) recommended against renewal, criticizing her teaching, collegiality, and service, and stating her Spring 2018 schedule change had “in effect, provided her with an additional seven weeks of paid maternity leave” and that she had failed to “pull her own weight.”
One PRC member dissented and later testified that another PRC member engaged in “gender microaggressions” and bullied female colleagues.
However, the dean, interim vice provost, and president agreed with the PRC’s majority decision, and the professor’s contract was not renewed. She filed her EEOC charge on April 16, 2019.
The trial court dismissed all of her claims. On appeal, the higher court said a jury should decide whether gender bias or retaliation played a role in the non-renewal decision.
Why the court said the case should go to a jury
A comment that crossed the line
The PRC noted her schedule change after childbirth gave her “an additional seven weeks of paid maternity leave” and tied that to performance concerns. The court said a jury could see that as punishing her for taking leave.
Rules applied differently
Her blended teaching request was denied, but male colleagues were approved to teach remotely for other personal reasons.
Questionable behavior in the review process
A PRC member allegedly treated women differently, made remarks about appearance, and cut the only female PRC member out of the process.
Suspicious timing
The PRC’s negative recommendation came just three weeks after she filed a detailed internal complaint, and one of the people who signed it admitted knowing about her complaint.
Bias can spread
Even if the dean, vice provost, and president were not biased themselves, a jury could still decide their decision was influenced by bias earlier in the process.
Employer takeaways
1. Don’t mix leave with performance reviews
Protected leave, whether for maternity, illness, or other reasons, should never be factored into job performance ratings or promotion decisions.
2. Enforce policies consistently
If one employee gets flexibility, others in similar situations should too, unless there is a clear, well-documented reason for a different outcome.
3. Act after a complaint, just have the proof
If you take action after someone complains, make sure it is backed by clear evidence, handled consistently with similar cases, and tied to the misconduct, not the complaint.
4. Review recommendations carefully
When a decision starts with a committee or manager, confirm the process and reasoning are sound before approving the final decision.
5. Train decisionmakers to avoid bias
Comments, tone, and deviations from normal procedure, no matter how small, can be enough for a court to send a case to trial.
Final thought
When a decision goes through multiple layers of review, early missteps can stick. A poorly chosen comment, uneven rule enforcement, or bad timing can follow the case all the way to court.