## Facts

- Reginald Clark, an African American, was hired in 1979 as an assistant professor in the Education Department at a graduate school operated by Claremont University Center; his appointment was renewed in 1982.
- Under the school’s tenure rules, Clark sought tenure in 1984 after receiving one year of credited prior experience.
- Tenure review proceeded through multiple levels, including a department vote and higher-level committee and administrative reviews, culminating in a final institutional decision.
- Clark had published a book and other scholarly work and taught courses; some colleagues and students supported his performance, and he received statements suggesting tenure was likely if he published his book.
- The Education Department voted 5–3 in favor of tenure, but two senior faculty members, including department leadership involved in his review, voted against him.
- The Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee voted 4–1 against tenure.
- Clark pursued an internal appeal alleging racial discrimination; the school president’s investigation identified a remark during tenure deliberations by a faculty member who voted against Clark: “us white folks have rights, too.”
- The president upheld the negative recommendation, citing insufficient publications and negative student evaluations.
- Clark’s contract was not renewed, and he left when it expired in 1985.
- Clark sued under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for race discrimination in the denial of tenure; a jury found for Clark and awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and the court awarded attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Clark was denied tenure because of race in violation of FEHA.
2. Whether, in a multi-level tenure process, the jury could infer that discriminatory intent at an earlier stage influenced the ultimate denial of tenure even if later decision makers were not shown to have made biased remarks.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Clark.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of racial discrimination under FEHA.
- The court rejected the argument that the multi-level tenure structure, by itself, insulated the final decision from bias expressed earlier in the process.
- The court held it was for the jury to decide credibility and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and the appellate court would not reweigh that evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under FEHA, race discrimination in employment decisions includes academic promotion and tenure decisions.
- On appeal after a jury verdict, the question is whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find discriminatory motive; appellate courts do not reassess credibility or reweigh competing proof.
- In a multi-step decision-making process, discriminatory animus at an earlier stage may be a causal factor in the final adverse action when later decision makers have before them, and may rely on, prior evaluations and recommendations infected by bias.
- Evidence supporting discriminatory motive may include racial remarks by participants in the process and proof that asserted performance-based reasons were inconsistent with other evidence and could be viewed as pretextual.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a FEHA race-discrimination verdict arising from denial of academic tenure, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding and that bias expressed in earlier tenure-review stages could reasonably be found to have influenced the final tenure decision when later reviewers considered earlier recommendations and evaluations.


Clark v. Claremont Univ. Ctr., 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)