## Facts

- Joseph Carpenter, a Black tenure-track assistant professor in the Afro-American Studies Department at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, was hired in 1972.
- The department was relatively new and carried responsibilities beyond teaching, including student support services and community cultural programming.
- The university’s tenure process required a tenure decision within a fixed probationary period (commonly described as a seven-year maximum), and scholarly publication was a central tenure criterion.
- Carpenter alleged that Afro-American Studies faculty bore heavier administrative and service burdens than faculty in more established departments, reducing time available for research and publication.
- The department’s executive committee recommended Carpenter for tenure, but the dean did not, and the university denied tenure, citing insufficient publication as the principal reason.
- Carpenter sued under Title VII asserting both disparate treatment and disparate impact; the disparate treatment claim was dismissed at the close of his case, and judgment was entered against him on disparate impact after a bench trial.
- On appeal, Carpenter challenged only the adverse judgment on the disparate-impact theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the university’s tenure system—particularly the fixed probationary period and emphasis on publication—caused a disparate impact on Black faculty in violation of Title VII.
2. Whether the district court’s findings rejecting disparate impact were clearly erroneous under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the Board of Regents.
- The court held Carpenter failed to meet his burden to prove that the challenged tenure practices, in fact, fell more harshly on Black faculty than on white faculty.
- The court found no clear error in the district court’s extensive factual findings and identified no legal error in the disparate-impact analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII disparate-impact plaintiff must identify specific, facially neutral employment practices and prove they cause a disproportionate adverse effect on a protected group.
- Individual or anecdotal evidence, without sufficient comparative or group-based proof, is generally inadequate to establish disparate impact.
- After a bench trial, appellate review of factual findings is highly deferential; findings are reversed only if clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a).
- Where the district court applies the correct disparate-impact framework and its findings are supported by the record, an appellate court will affirm even if the plaintiff shows heavy workload or structural challenges affecting an individual candidate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of Title VII disparate-impact relief because Carpenter did not provide adequate comparative evidence that the university’s probationary-period and publication-centered tenure criteria systematically disadvantaged Black faculty as a group, and the district court’s contrary factual findings were not clearly erroneous.


Carpenter v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 728 F.2d 911 (7th Cir. 1984)