# Lynn v. Regents of the University of California

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 21, 1981 · 656 F.2d 1337

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8913815

## Case

- **Full name:** Therese Ballet LYNN, and all others similarly situated v. The REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 21, 1981
- **Citations:** 656 F.2d 1337; 26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1391; 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,149; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17571
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Alarcon
- **Judges:** Alarcon, Reinhardt
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8913815

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that in camera review of tenure file for purpose of assisting factual determination in Title VII action violates due process

## Opinion text

ALARCON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the court insofar as it appears to hold that the district court may have violated Lynn’s right to due process by admitting the contents of the tenure review file into evidence “for the purpose of assisting it in making factual *1349 determinations or to evaluate other evidence”, supra at 1346, after denying Lynn’s request to examine these records because they contain privileged and confidential matter.
The balance of the court’s opinion is obi-ter dictum which is not only unnecessary to the disposition of this matter, but fails to give due consideration to the problems which will flow from a requirement that the confidentiality of peer review evaluation must be breached in every case in which a teacher’s ability is based, in large part, on the content of the peer review file, without regard to protection of the privacy of the commentators.
I would exercise judicial restraint and leave to another day the consideration of these seductive issues, when the questions are squarely before this court on a record which is otherwise free of reversible error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8913815. Public record. Not legal advice.