Sexual discrimination, emotional distress case continues

---

by George Hatoun

---

Kelly Long, a former Human Performance and Health Sciences assistant professor, claims that the university discriminated against her in its decision to deny her tenure because of her sex.

She is suing for lost wages, back pay, compensation of mental anguish and damage to career and reputation; she claims that the university intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her.

The case was originally filed in the civil court of Harris County but was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas because Long claims discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, a federal law. Attempts by Long to get the case sent back to the Harris County Court were unsuccessful.

In August, Long filed a Bill of Particulars to provide "the exact and precise evidence upon which she bases her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress."

The document gives sketchy details of alleged discrimination by HPER Department members. It claims that HPER Department professors "conspired together to ensure that [Long] would not be offered a promotion for tenure."

On Oct. 16, Rice filed an Initial Disclosure, a document identifying 18 university employees as "individual[s] likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts" in the case. The list includes the six defendants named by Long in the action:

* Bruce Etnyre, associate professor, HPER Department,

* James Disch, associate professor, HPER Department,

* Frank Bearden, professor, HPER Department,

* Nicholas Iammarino, professor, HPER Department,

* Dale Spence, professor, HPER Department and

* Allen Matusow, former dean of humanities.

The other Rice faculty and administration cited as potential sources of evidence for the case were:

* Hally Poindexter and Eva Lee -- professors in the HPER Department and members of Long's Promotion Review Committee,

* Larry McIntire, Richard Smith, Richard Stoll, William Veech, James Kinsey, Barry Dunning, Alan Grob, John Hutchinson and Marcia Citron -- professors and members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the University Council and

* President Malcolm Gillis.

The following are excerpts from Kelly Long's Bill of Particulars. "Plaintiff" refers to Long; "Defendants" are the university and six Rice professors named in the suit:

Defendants commented derogatorily on Plaintiff's attire, her professionalism and her expertise. Plaintiff was confronted in a hostile manner regarding activities she did in her off time. Plaintiff requested an opportunity to have release time from her curriculum due to her carrying a double load. Males in the department were frequently granted release time for less substantial loads. During a faculty meeting, Defendant Etnyre sarcastically commented on Plaintiff's request, causing humiliation in front of her colleagues. Plaintiff was laughingly referred to by Defendants as the "resident nutrition expert," again degrading her area of profession. Defendant Etnyre repeatedly kept an eye on the time Plaintiff would enter and/or exit the department; he was not Plaintiff's mentor or supervisor, nor was Plaintiff late for her schedule. Plaintiff's work papers and computer were invaded by Defendants. Comments were made to Plaintiff that a woman did not have any opportunities in the department. Comments were made to Plaintiff that decisions were made about departmental affairs at the "faculty meeting," referring to a poker game attended by only males in the department. A job benefit was given to a male in the department but not to Plaintiff; as rationale, it was explained to Plaintiff that he needed it because he had a family to support.

In addition, Plaintiff would show that some of the discriminatory actions complained of in this lawsuit, including denial of promotion to tenure, was not simply a discriminatory result arising out of an employment decision. Rather, Plaintiff would show that the individual Defendants named herein conspired together to ensure that Plaintiff would not be offered a promotion for tenure. Further, the individual Defendants, acting in consort, arranged a plan or scheme whereby Plaintiff would be denied the promotion to tenure and further resulting in the destruction of Plaintiff's career as a teaching professional at an accredited university. Defendants did this with the intention of harming Plaintiff and her career. The egregious acts complained of herein were committed knowingly and/or with malice toward Plaintiff. Defendants knew or had reason to know that their design, plan or scheme would create a high risk of harm to Plaintiff emotionally and professionally, and deliberately proceeded to act, in conscious disregard of or with indifference to that risk.

This item appeared in the News section of the November 3, 1995 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.