Tenure suits end in U.'s favor

By JEREMY KAHN Two tenure-denial lawsuits against the University ended favorably for the University this summer, with one being dropped and the other thrown out of court. Former Assistant Pharmacology Professor Michael White, who sued the University in July 1992, dropped his suit against the University, General Counsel Shelley Green said this week. White's suit claimed that a supervisor intentionally tricked him out of taking better job offers with promises of tenure in order to keep his federal research funding at the University. According to White's suit, Perry Molinoff, chairperson of the Medical School's Pharmacology Department, teased him with offers of tenure to prevent him from taking better positions at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and the University of Cincinnati. Meanwhile, the University collected $200,000 in overhead costs on White's $1.7 million research grant from the National Institutes of Health, according to the lawsuit. White had sought more than $170,000 in damages from the University. Former Philosophy Professor Izchak Miller's suit, which was filed in 1991, was thrown out of federal court by Judge Robert Gawthrop in late July. Miller's suit alleged that he was hired in 1982 with the understanding that he would receive tenure after a review during the 1987-88 academic year. The suit said that Miller was denied tenure in 1988 despite evidence of his "scholarly accomplishments and value to the University community." Miller's suit had also accused former Provost Michael Aiken of purposely hindering his appeal of tenure denial through University channels. But the University asked the judge to dismiss the case, stating that all University tenure procedures had been followed correctly and Judge Gawthrop granted the motion. "The question of re-evaluating plaintiff's qualifications and academic performance is not this court's call, but that of the University," Gawthrop said in his opinion on the case. The University's lawyer in the case, Alfred Putnam, said he was not surprised by Gawthrop's decision. But Miller's attorney Sheldon Tabb said he was "very much" surprised. "You can never be sure," Tabb said. "But Dr. Miller had an excellent case because there were clear violations of policy and procedure by the University." But Putnam said "this was a very tough case for the plaintiff." He also said that if the case had been decided in Miller's favor, "it would be virtually impossible to have tenure decisions made at the University level, because everyone who was denied tenure would sue." "Courts are understandably reluctant to interfere in [internal University affairs]," he added. Tabb declined to comment further on the case because "the University has asked that this case be cloaked in confidentiality." Miller spent four years appealing the case within the University before filing his suit. He was seeking tenure retroactive to September 1989 along with back wages and benefits. Miller is currently appealing Gawthrop's decision, Tabb said.