## Facts

- Maivan Clech Lam, a law professor of Vietnamese descent, applied to direct the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law’s Pacific Asian Legal Studies (PALS) Program.
- The law school conducted two hiring searches for the PALS directorship.
- In the 1987–88 search, Lam became a finalist, but the faculty cancelled the search without hiring anyone.
- Lam alleged that discriminatory attitudes toward Asians and women—particularly the influence and remarks of a senior faculty member within a small faculty—affected the decision-making process.
- In the 1989–90 search, the faculty offered the position to another candidate; when that candidate declined, the faculty again cancelled the search.
- Lam alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin and retaliation for opposing discrimination.
- Lam sued under Title VII and also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VI, and Title IX.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created a genuine issue of material fact that the University discriminated against Lam in the 1987–88 search, making summary judgment improper under Title VII.
2. Whether the district court committed legal error or clearly erroneous factfinding in ruling after a bench trial that there was no discrimination or retaliation in the 1989–90 search.
3. Whether Title VII analysis may fragment a claim into separate race and sex components when the alleged discrimination targets the combination of protected traits (e.g., an Asian woman).

## Decision

- Reversed the grant of partial summary judgment for defendants as to the 1987–88 search and remanded for trial on those Title VII claims.
- Affirmed the judgment for defendants, after bench trial, as to the 1989–90 search, finding no material legal error and no clearly erroneous findings.
- Indicated that, because the non-Title VII claims were resolved in a summary manner tracking the Title VII outcome, the district court would need to reconsider those rulings to the extent its conclusions on discrimination changed on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where, viewing evidence and inferences favorably to the plaintiff, a reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory motive in an employment decision.
- In collective decision-making by a small group, bias by an influential participant can taint the overall process; discriminatory conduct at any stage may affect the final outcome.
- Title VII permits claims based on intersectional discrimination; a plaintiff may be discriminated against because of the combined characteristics of race and sex (and related traits), even if groups sharing only one of those characteristics are treated better.
- After a bench trial, appellate review defers to the trial court’s factfinding unless clearly erroneous, while legal conclusions are reviewed for error.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Lam produced sufficient evidence to require a trial on whether discrimination affected the first PALS directorship search, while affirming the defense judgment after trial on the second search, and it clarified that Title VII must account for discrimination aimed at the intersection of protected traits rather than treating race and sex as isolated categories.


Lam v. Univ. of Haw., 40 F.3d 1551 (9th Cir. 1994)