## Facts

- The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania operated the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine (“Penn Vet”), a highly competitive program with a low acceptance rate.
- Kimberley Tingley-Kelley applied for admission six times (2002–2007) and was denied each time.
- Penn Vet used a multi-stage admissions process: an initial screening by admissions officials; then committee review by faculty/alumni considering GPA, GRE (with quantitative emphasized), recent coursework (“last 45 credit hours”), experience, recommendations, and personal statements; and interviews for selected applicants.
- In at least one admissions cycle, two committee members recommended that Tingley-Kelley be interviewed.
- Tingley-Kelley alleged that admissions decisionmakers made statements she construed as reflecting gender bias in the admissions process.
- After she complained about sex discrimination, she alleged Penn Vet took actions she viewed as retaliatory.
- She also alleged admissions officials misrepresented admissions criteria and her prospects, inducing repeated applications and payment of application fees.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence in the record could permit a reasonable jury to find that Penn Vet denied admission because of sex in violation of Title IX.
2. Whether the evidence could support a Title IX retaliation claim based on protected complaints and a causal link to adverse action.
3. Whether Penn Vet’s statements about admissions criteria/prospects constituted actionable fraudulent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania law.
4. Whether Penn Vet was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56 on any of the claims.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- Summary judgment was denied on the Title IX sex-discrimination claim because the plaintiff presented evidence the court characterized as direct evidence of discriminatory animus, requiring jury resolution.
- Summary judgment was granted on substantial portions of the retaliation and fraud theories where the record did not create a triable dispute under the governing legal standards.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the record contains evidence from which a reasonable jury could find unlawful discrimination; where purported direct evidence is presented, credibility and inference are for the jury.
- Title IX admissions discrimination claims are evaluated using principles analogous to Title VII, focusing on whether sex was a motivating or determinative factor in the challenged decision.
- Title IX retaliation requires proof of protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection.
- Pennsylvania fraudulent misrepresentation requires a material misrepresentation of fact, knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages; opinions, encouragement, and predictions about future events are generally not actionable as fraud.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the Title IX sex-discrimination claim to proceed to trial because the record contained evidence that, if credited, could show sex-based decisionmaking, while disposing at summary judgment of retaliation and fraud components that lacked sufficient proof of causation or actionable misrepresentation.


Tingley-Kelley v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa., 677 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D. Pa. 2010)