Article Archives >> Lead Stories >> January 16-February 15, 2010

Preview of Article:

Woman May Sue for Bias
In Denied Admission to Vet School
Committee focused on “tough row to hoe”
for mom with young kids and Air Force husband

When members of the admissions committee of a veterinary school express concern on multiple occasions about the “tough row to hoe” for a mother of two young children whose husband is on active duty in the Air Force and then deny admission, is that evidence of gender discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?  A federal District Court in Philadelphia has said that it is enough to deny a summary judgment for the school and send the case to trial. 

Kimberley Tingley-Kelley applied to the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School six times between 2002 and 2007 and was denied each time.  She had graduated from the University of Massachusetts in Boston in 1989 with a GPA of 2.67.  In 1992, when she began to think about veterinary school, she took several courses in chemistry, molecular biology and algebra at Harvard, getting a C+ in algebra but dropping the other courses.  In 1994, she took science courses at community colleges and got A’s and B’s.

When she moved to Philadelphia in 1999, she got B’s in cellular biology and biochemistry and dropped a class in vertebrate physiology at Penn.  She subsequently took more courses at Temple University.

After her first application was denied in 2002, she spoke with the associate dean for admissions, who said it was possible that she could be admitted and urged her to strengthen her application.  She took organic chemistry at Temple and got an A.

After her 2003 application was rejected she spoke again with the associate dean who said she should discuss her husband’s active duty status to explain why she had moved around so much. 

By the time of her 2004 application she had earned her M.S. from Temple with “highest honors” and a GPA for her last 45 credit hours of 3.73.  She passed the first cut of applicants and was interviewed.  According to her complaint, she was asked about her family situation by one of the interviewers who commented that she had “a lot on her plate.”  She was asked how she would care for her baby daughter if her husband were deployed.  After the interview, the interviewers made notes on her file about her family situation and recommended denial of admission.

In 2005, she told the associate dean that her scientific research had been published in a major scientific journal, she had taught basic science courses, taken another class and given birth to a son.  Two weeks later, she was denied again.

In 2006, she took the advice of the assistant dean and described herself as a “stay-at-home-mom” and discussed her family situation as a reason she had not had more veterinary experience.  When her file was initially reviewed, one of the reviewers put a note in the file about her “concerns about how she’ll do in school, esp. w/family, etc.”  The other said it would be a “tough row to hoe.”  Nevertheless she was scheduled for an interview.  During the interview she said she was questioned again about her family situation and one of the interviewers asked why she did not return to Boston where she would have more support from her family. When asked what she had done to strengthen her application in the previous year, she said she had gotten an A in calculus, volunteered at a small veterinary hospital, and continued to teach basic science labs at Temple University.  Her application was rejected a week later.

She applied again in 2007 and was rejected without an interview.  She subsequently sued.

After lengthy discovery, the Vet School moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case.  The Court denied the motion.

Where a plaintiff provides direct evidence of discrimination, the Court wrote, a defendant is liable upon proof that a forbidden criteria was “a motivating factor” even though other factors also motivated the decision.  “The notes on her Application Review forms and the comments and questions during her interviews, viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Tingley-Kelley, could demonstrate that Admissions Committee members discriminated against her on the basis of her gender by stereotyping her as a busy mother of young children who would have a difficult time handling both graduate school and her childcare responsibilities,” the Court said.

“Based on these comments and questions, and their timing, a jury could infer that the decision to deny her admission was motivated by impermissible, sex-based factors,” the Court held.

The school argued that it would have reached the same result absent any discrimination because she was not objectively qualified to gain admission.  But the Court said that her GRE scores and GPA fell within the range of scores for applicants who were ultimately accepted in each of the years she applied.

Because she had offered direct evidence “that may amount to discrimination,” the Court said the burden did not shift to her to prove that the University’s stated reason was pretext as would be the case if she had offered only indirect evidence.  Although Penn offered evidence that the jury could find “quite convincing” that it had not discriminated, a reasonable jury could also find that gender was a motivating factor in denying admission, the Court concluded.  (Tingley-Kelley v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, E.D. PA, No. 08-750, 1/7/10.)

You need to know….  It is a shame, though not really surprising, that interviewers in the 21st century still ask women about their family situation.  That should have gone out of style a long time ago.

Article Archives >> Lead Stories >> January 16-February 15, 2010