UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-50732
Summary Calendar
ZBIGNIEW M. WOJCIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(SA-95-CV-93)
April 2, 1997
Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zbigniew M. Wojcik sued his former employer, the University of
Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), for employment discrimination under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended at 42 U.S.C.
§2000e, et seq. Wojcik, a native of Poland, alleges he was denied
tenure because of his national origin. The district court granted
summary judgment for the defendant. Wojcik appeals.
As is well known, in a Title VII case the plaintiff must first
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a
prima facie case in the context of a denial of tenure, the
plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2)
he was qualified for tenure, and (3) he was denied tenure in
circumstances permitting an interference of discrimination.1 If
the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, then he has raised a
presumption of discrimination and the burden shifts to the
defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for the challenged action.2 If the defendant meets this burden by
presenting evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, would
support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of
the employment action, then the presumption raised by the
plaintiff’s prima facie case essentially disappears, and the
plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden, which has never left
him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated
against him.3
Other circuits have recognized that tenure decisions in
colleges and universities involve considerations that set them
apart from other kinds of employment decisions.4 Those factors
are: (1) tenure contracts require unusual commitments as to time
1
Zahorik v. Cornell University, 729 F.2d 85, 92 (5th Cir.
1984).
2
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802
(1973).
3
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747-49
(1993).
4
Zahorik v. Cornell University, 729 F.2d 85, 92 2nd Cir.
1992); Kumar v. University of Massachusetts, 774 F.2d 1, 11 (5th
Cir. 1985).
and collegial relationships, (2) academic tenure decisions are
often non-competitive, (3) tenure decisions are usually highly
decentralized, (4) the number of factors considered in tenure
decisions is quite extensive, and (5) tenure decisions are a source
of unusually great disagreement.5
Tenure decisions are not, however, exempt from judicial
scrutiny under Title VII. To prove a prima facie case, a plaintiff
may be able to show “departures from procedural regularity”,
“conventional evidence of bias on the part of individuals
involved”, or that the plaintiff is found to be qualified for
tenure by “some significant portion of the departmental faculty,
referrants or other scholars in the particular field”.6
In this case, the district court carefully considered the
special considerations outlined in Zahorik and concluded, based on
undisputed facts, that there was no evidence that unlawful
discrimination played a role in UTSA’s decision to deny tenure to
Wojcik. Based on our de novo review of the record, we find that
the summary judgment was appropriate. Accordingly, the district
court is AFFIRMED.
5
Zahorik, 729 F.2d at 92-93.
6
Id. at 93-94.