## Facts

- Christine M. Sweeney taught in Keene State College’s Department of Education beginning in 1969.
- She sought promotion to full professor twice and was denied, then later received the promotion in 1976.
- Sweeney alleged that sex discrimination caused the denial of her second promotion attempt and sought retroactive promotion with back pay.
- She also alleged sex-based salary disparities on the faculty and asserted she was paid less than male faculty performing substantially equal work.
- She sued the college’s governing board and affiliated officials under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- After a bench trial, the district court rejected the Equal Pay Act, Title IX, § 1983, and constitutional claims, but found a Title VII violation as to the second promotion denial and awarded retroactive promotion to 1975, back pay, and $17,766.56 in attorney’s fees and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Sweeney’s sex was a factor in the denial of promotion to full professor on her second application, in violation of Title VII.
2. How institutional evidence of sex-based salary and promotion disparities could bear on an individual Title VII promotion claim.
3. Under the *McDonnell Douglas* framework, whether the employer must merely articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason or must prove the absence of discriminatory motive.
4. Whether retroactive promotion, back pay, and attorney’s fees were proper and within the district court’s remedial discretion.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s Title VII judgment for Sweeney on the promotion claim and upheld retroactive promotion to 1975, back pay, and attorney’s fees and costs.
- The court did not disturb the district court’s rejection of Sweeney’s Equal Pay Act, Title IX, § 1983, and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
- In describing the burden-shifting framework, the court stated that once a prima facie case is shown the employer must prove the absence of discriminatory motive (language later rejected by the Supreme Court when it vacated and remanded for reconsideration under *Furnco*).

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment promotion claims commonly proceed under the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting method: prima facie case, employer explanation, and plaintiff proof of pretext with ultimate persuasion remaining on the plaintiff.
- The employer’s step in the *McDonnell Douglas* sequence is satisfied by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; requiring proof of no discriminatory motive misstates that step.
- Institutional statistical and comparative evidence may be relevant context in evaluating whether stated reasons for an adverse decision are pretextual in an individual discrimination claim.
- Retroactive promotion, back pay, and attorney’s fees are available Title VII remedies and are generally reviewed with deference to the trial court’s remedial judgment when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Title VII relief for a sex-biased denial of promotion and affirmed retroactive promotion, back pay, and fees, but its description of the employer’s burden as proving the absence of discriminatory motive prompted vacatur and remand for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s clarified *McDonnell Douglas/Furnco* framework.


Sweeney v. Bd. of Trs. of Keene State Coll., 569 F.2d 169 (1st Cir. 1978)