Where a plaintiff brought suit against the defendant university that denied her a full professor position, an award of summary judgment in favor of the defendant should be affirmed because (1) the plaintiff was not qualified for the position of professor, (2) the plaintiff has not shown the existence of a material fact to suggest that the employer’s proffered reason for not promoting her was merely pretextual and that the actual reason was discriminatory, and (3) the adverse employment action was not causally linked to the plaintiff’s protected conduct (filing a 2017 sexual harassment complaint).
“Melissa Ing sued her former employer, Tufts University (‘Tufts’), alleging that Tufts denied her a full professor position on the basis of sex discrimination and/or retaliation for engaging in protected conduct in violation of federal and state antidiscrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.; and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, §4. …
“The dispute at hand centers around whether Ing showed that she was qualified for the position of professor. The [School of Dental Medicine (SDM)] Faculty Handbook specifically details what evidence will suffice to show accomplishment in the Educational Leadership area. This evidence may include serving as a dean, department chair, or division head; chairing a standing or management committee; serving as a course director; and/or...
'These criminals exploited vulnerable children': RFK Jr. slams 15 charged in the largest autism care scam in US historymoneywise.