## Facts

- Fred Shoucair, a tenure-track assistant professor in Brown University’s engineering division, began employment in 1987; his responsibilities included teaching, research, supervising doctoral work, and seeking grant funding.
- Shoucair had a prior conflict with a senior faculty member who later became Dean of Engineering; the dean recused himself from the tenure review but appointed another professor (Glicksman) to chair Shoucair’s tenure committee.
- Glicksman also co-chaired a separate faculty search in which the Affirmative Action Monitoring Committee required that a minority candidate be interviewed before the search could proceed.
- Glicksman asked Shoucair to interview the minority candidate; Shoucair resisted, believing the hire had already been decided and that the interview was a façade to satisfy affirmative-action requirements.
- Soon after this episode, Brown’s tenure process moved forward: a three-member tenure committee recommended tenure but expressed concerns about Shoucair’s research contributions; the tenured faculty group then voted against tenure, followed by negative votes at higher levels, culminating in denial of tenure in 1993.
- In 1996, Shoucair sued under the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) alleging ethnic discrimination/hostile work environment and retaliation.
- A jury rejected the discrimination claim but found retaliation and awarded $175,000 compensatory damages, $100,000 punitive damages, and $400,000 back pay.
- Post-trial, the court reduced back pay to $280,000, denied judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, left compensatory and punitive awards intact, and declined reinstatement with tenure and declined front pay.
- Brown appealed liability and damages; Shoucair cross-appealed the back-pay reduction and denial of reinstatement/front pay.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Brown denied tenure in retaliation for Shoucair’s protected opposition activity under FEPA.
2. Whether the evidentiary record satisfied Rhode Island’s standard for punitive damages.
3. Whether the trial court erred by reducing back pay and by denying reinstatement with tenure or, alternatively, front pay.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the retaliation verdict, holding the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that protected opposition activity led to denial of tenure and that Brown’s stated academic reasons could be found pretextual.
- The court vacated the $100,000 punitive damages award, concluding the proof did not meet Rhode Island’s heightened requirement of malicious, wanton, or willful conduct.
- The court affirmed the reduced back-pay award and upheld the denial of reinstatement with tenure and denial of front pay, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s remedial rulings.
- The judgment was affirmed in all respects except punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- FEPA retaliation follows a burden-shifting approach requiring proof of protected activity, adverse employment action, and a causal link; protected activity includes opposing practices the employee reasonably believes are discriminatory, even if a separate discrimination claim fails.
- Tenure decisions, though involving academic judgment, are not insulated from anti-retaliation scrutiny; a jury may find a stated academic rationale pretextual based on timing, departures from usual decision patterns, and credibility evidence.
- Punitive damages in Rhode Island require conduct more egregious than that needed for retaliation liability, approaching malice, wantonness, or willfulness; retaliation alone does not automatically justify punitive damages.
- Back pay, reinstatement, and front pay are remedial determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; reinstatement and front pay may be denied where the relationship is unworkable or future losses are too uncertain.

## Conclusion

The court sustained liability for retaliatory denial of tenure under FEPA and upheld compensatory damages and reduced back pay, but it set aside punitive damages and deferred to the trial court’s refusal to order reinstatement with tenure or award front pay.


Shoucair v. Brown Univ., 917 A.2d 418 (R.I. 2007)