Scott Talentino

EDUC 714

Professor Roth

Case Brief
Case Name: Brown vs. The Trustees of Boston University

Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Year Decided: 1989

Facts: Julia Prewitt Brown, an assistant professor of English at Boston University, was denied
tenure by the Trustees of Boston University. Brown campus up for tenure in 1979-1980.
Professor Brown prepared a dossier, including her dissertation, Jane Austen’s Novels: Social
Change and Literary Form, which had been published by the Harvard University Press, and
other book reviews and review essays. She also listed a proposed book about Oscar Wilde and
received a Mellon grant of 16,000 dollars to write this book, and an offer to teach at Harvard
University. The English department voted unanimously to give her tenure, with the department
chair praising Professor Brown’s scholarship and teaching. This was followed by the Promotions
and Tenure Committee of the College of Liberal Arts (CLA), who also voted to give her tenure
unanimously. After this, the Dean of the CLA recommended Professor Brown for tenure, but with
reservations, mentioning that she did not spend enough time with students and she had met
some historical criticism from outside scholars and suggested she be put on 3-year probation to
see if her work on Oscar Wilde could be evaluated.
The Dean told Professor Brown he had recommended her but refrained from telling her
about the reservations he had mentioned. At the university-wide APT, at the next level, tenure
was recommended on a vote of 9-2. The Assistant Provost, Simon Parker, also wished to see a
3-year extension to see if the Oscar Wilde book could be used as proof of the merit of tenure for
Professor Brown. This was rebuffed by the English department and the University APT, and
rejected by Professor Brown. An ad hoc committee was convened by order of the Provost, with
one member chosen by the Provost, with one member chosen by the Provost The committee
voted in her favor 2-1, but the Provost remained unconvinced. President Silber of Boston
University then recommended to the Boston Trustees to not grant Tenure. Professor Brown
asserted to President Silber that Provost Parker had used sex discrimination against her in the
review, and held her to higher standards than male candidates before her. The President stood
by his decision and the Board of Trustees denied Professor Brown Tenure.

Procedural History: Professor Brown asserted that Boston University violated collective
bargaining agreements. Furthermore, she put forth allegations that she was denied tenure on
the basis of her sex, which would be a violation of her collective bargaining agreement, and
would be a violation of an anti-discrimination clause that was in that agreement.

Issues Presented:
Issue 1: Was professor Brown denied tenure by the Trustees at Boston University
because of her sex?
Issue 2: Are Professor Brown’s claims triable by jury under federal and state civil
statutes and are they triable by jury under contract claims?

Issue 2: Was professor Brown denied tenure by the Trustees at Boston University
because of her sex?
Answers:
Issue 1: Yes, Professor brown was denied tenure on the basis of being a woman and
this violated her contract and provision prohibiting sex discrimination.

Issue 2: Professor Brown’s claims are not triable by jury under federal and state civil
statutes, but yes they are triable by jury by virtue of contract claims.

Reasoning:
Issue 1: For this particular case, the reasoning of issue 1 greatly involved the decisions
of the jury. The jury was presented with information and the facts of the case concerning
Professor Brown’s experiences, including her higher level of support from faculty for tenure
compared to previous male colleagues. Previous to Browns’ unanimous votes from the
department, two male counterparts received votes of 16 in favor to 6 against, and 10 in favor to
4 against. The jury was presented with a special verdict form that stated, “Do you find that the
Trustees at Boston University refused to grant tenure to the plaintiff because of her sex?” After
reviewing this information the jury returned with a vote of yes and found damages in the amount
of $200,000 as the result of a breach of contract.

Issue 2: The court determined that Professor Brown’s claims were not triable by a jury
under federal and state civil statutes, however, the court did find that due to the jury confirming
that Professor Brown was denied tenure on the basis of sex, this did violate parts of her contract
at Boston University and thus was grounds for sex discrimination under the contract claim and
thus triable by a jury in court. The court proceeded to award her $15,000 for emotional distress,
reinstatement to the position of associate professor with tenure, enjoined Boston University from
discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to Professor Brown, and awarded Professor
Brown her attorney’s fees and lawsuit expenses.