## Facts

- Dr. Nolvert P. Scott, Jr., a Black assistant professor of sociology at the University of Delaware, sued the University, its trustees, and officials involved in faculty employment decisions.
- Scott brought individual and class claims alleging racial discrimination in faculty hiring, recruitment, tenure, promotion, supervision, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment.
- The court certified a class of Black individuals allegedly affected by the University’s faculty employment practices; the case proceeded to a four-week bench trial.
- The University, though historically private, had extensive and longstanding ties with the State of Delaware; the court treated the University’s actions as state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
- Historically, the University did not admit Black students and had no Black faculty before 1948.
- Scott came up for tenure review after two years; the sociology faculty recommended denial of tenure and reappointment.
- The University provided a detailed written explanation citing perceived deficiencies in scholarship and teaching, including lack of significant research aimed at publication and negative teaching evaluations and student complaints.
- Scott contended that similarly situated non-Black faculty received more favorable accommodations (e.g., additional time or altered evaluation timetables), and that denial of similar accommodations to him reflected racial bias.
- Class evidence included faculty tenure outcomes for Black faculty and challenges to certain practices, including a doctoral-degree requirement and subjective tenure criteria, as producing adverse effects on Black candidates.

## Issues

1. Whether the University’s faculty employment practices constituted race discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Equal Protection Clause enforceable via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether Scott was denied tenure and reappointment because of race (disparate treatment).
3. Whether the doctoral-degree requirement and subjective tenure decision-making produced an unlawful disparate impact on Black faculty, and if so, whether those practices were justified as job-related and necessary to legitimate academic objectives.

## Decision

- The court held the University’s conduct constituted state action, permitting § 1983 equal protection claims to be adjudicated on the merits.
- The court entered judgment for defendants on Scott’s individual claims under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983.
- The court denied class-wide relief, finding no pattern or practice of intentional discrimination and no proven unlawful disparate impact from the challenged policies.
- The court accepted the University’s stated reasons for Scott’s tenure denial as legitimate academic judgments about teaching and scholarship, not pretext for racial discrimination.
- The court upheld the doctoral-degree requirement and the University’s use of evaluative criteria such as teaching, scholarship, and service, given the evidentiary record.

## Legal Principles

- A university’s actions may be attributable to the state for Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 purposes when state involvement is extensive and longstanding.
- Disparate-treatment claims follow a burden-shifting approach: prima facie showing, employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and plaintiff’s proof of pretext and intentional discrimination.
- Disparate-impact liability requires proof that a facially neutral practice causes a statistically and practically significant adverse effect on a protected group; an employer may defend by showing the practice is job-related and necessary to legitimate institutional objectives.
- Courts generally avoid acting as super-review bodies for academic tenure judgments absent strong evidence that discriminatory intent, rather than academic assessment, drove the decision.
- Subjective decision-making may support discrimination claims, but plaintiffs must still prove discriminatory impact or intentional bias through competent comparative, statistical, and contextual evidence.

## Conclusion

After a bench trial, the court rejected both the individual and class claims, concluding that Scott did not prove intentional race discrimination in his tenure denial and that the class did not prove the University’s credential requirements or tenure evaluation processes caused unlawful disparate impact on Black faculty.


Scott v. Univ. of Del., 455 F. Supp. 1102 (D. Del. 1978)