## Facts

- Connie Rae Kunda worked at Muhlenberg College as an instructor in the Physical Education Department from 1966 through 1975.
- The faculty tenure framework limited years that could be served at the instructor rank and tied tenure to Board action on the President’s recommendation; the President interpreted the rules to require substantial service at professorial rank for tenure eligibility.
- In the Physical Education Department, a master’s degree functioned as the “terminal degree” used for promotion and tenure decisions, though this expectation was not clearly communicated to Kunda.
- Kunda lacked a master’s degree but received favorable evaluations and was recommended for promotion (and, internally, for tenure) by her department chair and faculty committees, including the Faculty Personnel and Policies Committee and the Faculty Board of Appeals.
- The President and Board denied promotion and did not grant tenure, citing Kunda’s lack of a master’s degree.
- Evidence showed male faculty without terminal degrees had been promoted and, in some instances, tenured, and that male faculty in the department were informed by the dean that a master’s degree was necessary.
- Muhlenberg could not provide a neutral explanation for why Kunda was not informed about the degree requirement despite administrative discussions about her future.
- Kunda sued under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination in promotion and tenure decisions and in the college’s failure to counsel her about requirements needed to advance.

## Issues

1. Whether Muhlenberg intentionally discriminated on the basis of sex by denying Kunda promotion to Assistant Professor.
2. Whether Muhlenberg intentionally discriminated on the basis of sex by denying Kunda tenure.
3. Whether providing unequal counseling and notice about the master’s degree requirement constituted intentional sex discrimination under Title VII.
4. What equitable relief was appropriate if discrimination affected Kunda’s opportunity to satisfy facially neutral promotion and tenure standards.

## Decision

- The court found Muhlenberg violated Title VII by denying Kunda promotion on the basis of sex.
- The court found unequal counseling and failure to inform Kunda about the master’s degree requirement, when male counterparts were informed, constituted intentional sex discrimination.
- The court did not find the substantive tenure denial discriminatory insofar as the terminal-degree requirement for tenure was applied uniformly at the tenure decision stage.
- The court ordered equitable relief, including reinstatement and back pay.
- The court granted conditional tenure relief: tenure would become effective upon Kunda’s obtaining the required master’s degree.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment claims may be proven through circumstantial evidence using burden shifting: prima facie showing, employer’s stated reason, and proof of pretext.
- A stated qualification (such as a terminal-degree requirement) may be legitimate in the abstract, yet serve as a pretext for discrimination when inconsistently applied or selectively enforced.
- Differential communication, mentoring, or counseling about requirements for advancement can constitute intentional sex discrimination when provided to men but withheld from women and when it materially affects employment opportunities.
- In academic employment disputes, courts may distinguish between the legitimacy of a standard and discriminatory implementation, and may award equitable remedies designed to approximate the position the plaintiff would have held absent discrimination, including conditional relief.

## Conclusion

The court held that Muhlenberg intentionally discriminated against Kunda under Title VII by denying promotion and by providing unequal counseling about the master’s degree requirement, while concluding that the tenure criterion itself was not discriminatorily applied at the point of tenure decision; it ordered reinstatement with back pay and awarded tenure conditionally upon Kunda obtaining the required master’s degree.


Kunda v. Muhlenberg Coll., 463 F. Supp. 294 (E.D. Pa. 1978)