A federal judge has dismissed a gender-bias lawsuit brought against the University of Oregon by a former graduate student.
The plaintiff, Monica A. Emeldi, contended in her lawsuit that she had been retaliated against after she complained about unequal treatment of women in her Ph.D. program in the university’s College of Education. She said she had been prevented from completing the program when the chair of her dissertation committee, Robert H. Horner, resigned from that role and 15 other faculty members declined her requests to serve as her new dissertation chair.
The case had been closely watched nationally because it sought to apply Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal antidiscrimination law, to academic relationships between graduate students and professors, a sphere that universities say is protected by academic freedom. Universities were concerned that a victory for Ms. Emeldi would harm professors’ ability to make academic decisions about student performance without fear of being sued.
But Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., dismissed the case on Wednesday, less than 48 hours after the trial had begun.
Randy Geller, the university’s general counsel, said the university had asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit after arguing that Ms. Emeldi had not produced sufficient evidence to prove her case. The judge agreed and granted the university’s motion.
“The judge said this case came down to personalities and academic differences,” Mr. Geller said in an interview. “He saw no evidence of gender discrimination and retaliation.”
Mr. Geller said the university was “always pleased to be vindicated in court,” but he added, “We believe that this matter should have never been in court in the first place.”
A lawyer for Ms. Emeldi said he and his client were uncertain whether they would appeal the decision.
Fears of a ‘Chilling Effect’
Ms. Emeldi’s lawsuit, first filed in 2008, was dismissed by the district court in that year before coming to trial. But on appeal, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last year that there was enough evidence to let a jury decide whether the decisions of Mr. Horner and the other faculty members constituted retaliation.
Mr. Geller said on Thursday that he worried about the effects of letting cases like Ms. Emeldi’s go to trial.
“The amount of evidence that has to be produced in order to get a university or professor into a court appears to be much lower than in the past,” Mr. Geller said, “and that is of concern.
“It will have a chilling effect on faculty members who are concerned about continuing to expect high standards of scholarship from certain graduate students who present a risk of litigation and seek redress whether they have been wronged or not,” he said.
Ms. Emeldi declined to comment on Judge McShane’s ruling and referred questions to her lawyer, David C. Force.
In an interview, Mr. Force said that he and Ms. Emeldi were disappointed by the ruling.
“I disagree with the judge’s decision that there was not enough evidence to let the jury decide,” Mr. Force said, “but I appreciate the fact that he did not agree that the university can take whatever action it wants against students who make complaints against gender discrimination. The judge refused to allow the university to raise the defense of academic freedom. That was a fundamental issue that this case intended to raise.”
Mr. Force said that Ms. Emeldi’s case also shows the ineffectiveness of university grievance processes for students.
“The grievance process is an illusion at best, and a trap for the unwary at worst,” Mr. Force said. “When you file a grievance, you are challenging the power structure to the power structure, and the power structure will respond.”
