Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Arizona Board of Regents’ motion for summary judgment in April Brown’s Title VII sex-discrimination claim arising from the nonrenewal of her non-tenure-track faculty contract at Northern Arizona University. The court assumed Brown established a prima facie case based on male comparators but concluded she lacked sufficient evidence that the stated nondiscriminatory rationale was pretextual. The court also applied the same-actor inference because the primary decision-maker had recently supported Brown’s promotion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Brown presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of disparate-treatment sex discrimination under Title VII.
- Whether ABOR offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Brown's contract nonrenewal and whether Brown presented sufficient evidence of pretext to avoid summary judgment.
- Whether the same-actor inference applied because Pugliesi advocated for Brown's promotion shortly before selecting her for nonrenewal.
Holdings
- Brown established, or at minimum the court assumed she established, a prima facie case because she was a member of a protected class, qualified for and satisfactorily performed her job, suffered the adverse employment action of contract nonrenewal, and identified substantially equal male comparators whose contracts were renewed.
- ABOR articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for nonrenewing Brown's contract, and Brown failed to produce direct or specific and substantial circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the stated rationale was pretextual.
- The same-actor inference applied because Pugliesi advocated for and formally recommended Brown's promotion shortly before selecting Brown for nonrenewal, requiring an extraordinarily strong showing of discrimination to establish pretext.
Key quotations
“Where the same actor responsible for the adverse employment action was shortly beforehand responsible for a positive employment action, the court infers there was no discrimination.” (at 9)
“Brown made a prima facie case of discrimination but did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome ABOR’s nondiscriminatory rationale for her non-renewal, particularly given the applicability of the same-actor inference.” (at 10)
Factual background
Brown worked as a non-tenure-track faculty member at Northern Arizona University from 2016 until her yearly contract was not renewed for the 2020-2021 academic year. She had positive performance reviews, received teaching recognition, and was promoted through a multilevel process in February 2020. During COVID-related staffing reductions, ABOR selected Brown for nonrenewal based on asserted instructional, enrollment, strategic-impact, and programmatic considerations; Brown identified two male journalism faculty members whose contracts were renewed as comparators. Karen Pugliesi, who had advocated for Brown's promotion shortly before the nonrenewal decision, was the primary decision-maker in selecting Brown for nonrenewal.
Procedural history
April Brown sued the Arizona Board of Regents, alleging that the nonrenewal of her yearly faculty contract at Northern Arizona University was motivated by sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the retaliation claim. The court granted ABOR's motion for summary judgment on the remaining gender-discrimination claim and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for defendant and close the case.