UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether First Amendment principles of academic freedom require a judicial finding of a specific need before peer review materials relating to discrimination charges are disclosed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

After the University of Pennsylvania denied tenure to associate professor Rosalie Tung, she filed a charge with respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the course of its investigation, the Commission issued a subpoena seeking Tung's tenure-review file and the tenure files of five male faculty members identified in the charge as having received more favorable treatment than Tung. University of Pennsylvania refused to produce a number of the tenure file documents and applied to the Commission for modification of the subpoena to exclude what it termed "confidential peer review information." 

The Commission denied the application and successfully sought enforcement of the subpoena by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting the university's claim that policy considerations and First Amendment principles of academic freedom required the recognition of a qualified privilege or the adoption of a balancing approach that would require the Commission to demonstrate some particularized need, beyond a showing of relevance, to obtain peer review materials.