Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
June 15, 2004, Filed
[*1235] LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Dr. Cynthia Annett filed suit against the University of Kansas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, alleging that the University had unlawfully retaliated against her for exercising her rights under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the University. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. [*1236]
In August 1992, Annett began her employment as a tenure-track assistant professor at the University of Kansas ("University"). She was denied tenure in March 1998, and her employment was terminated at the end of the 1998-1999 school year. Annett filed suit in federal court in February 1999, alleging that her termination [**2] was the result of discrimination and retaliation. On March 3, 2000, a jury found in favor of the University; post-trial motions continued into June 2000. In July 1999, Dr. Maria Carlson, Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies, requested that Provost David Shulenburger appoint Annett to the position of adjunct assistant professor to allow Annett to continue her work on a USAID-funded University grant. Shulenburger appointed Annett to an adjunct lecturer position rather than an adjunct assistant professor position for a one-year term beginning July 1, 1999. He reappointed Annett as an adjunct lecturer for the period between August 18, 2000 and August 17, 2001.
Annett alleges that in the spring of 1999, she applied for principal investigator ("PI") status through Carlson. PI status permits an individual to act as the director on grant applications sponsored by the University. According to University regulations, regular faculty are entitled to automatic PI or Co-PI status, whereas adjunct faculty must apply for "special" or "project" PI status through a University sponsor. Annett claims that Carlson informed her that she was not eligible for PI status at the University, [**3] yet failed to inform her that she was eligible for special or project PI status.
On April 14, 2000, Annett applied for the position of assistant director at the University's Equal Opportunity Office ("EOO"), a position which included facilitating recruitment and hiring for faculty and unclassified staff. The search committee decided not to interview Annett for the position; Annett was notified of this decision in a letter dated May 11, 2000. She also received a letter dated June 12, 2000, stating that another candidate had been selected.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
371 F.3d 1233 *; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11708 **; 93 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1789; 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,760
DR. CYNTHIA ANNETT, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. (D.C. No. 01-2367-JAR).
Annett v. Univ. of Kan., 216 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16866 (D. Kan., 2002)
retaliation, hire, temporal proximity, adjunct, prima facie case, pretext, protected activity, adverse action, district court, ranked, committee member, alleges, adverse employment action, future employment, interview, prospects, reasons, recruitment, candidate, assistant director, summary judgment, unclassified, constitutes, compliance, proffered, eligible, lecturer, faculty, lawsuit
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, General Overview, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Labor & Employment Law, Retaliation, Statutory Application, Discrimination, Actionable Discrimination, Civil Actions, Exhaustion of Remedies