holding that, even if one employee was “teaching-oriented” professor and plaintiff was “research-oriented professor, a comparison between the two can be made to determine if [the college’s] five objective criteria for advancement to full professor were evenly applied” — even if composition of some of reviewing committees may have been different
How later courts described this case
- holding that, even if one employee was “teaching-oriented” professor and plaintiff was “research-oriented professor, a comparison between the two can be made to determine if [the college’s] five objective criteria for advancement to full professor were evenly applied” — even if composition of some of reviewing committees may have been different
- entire controversy doctrine precludes claims that could have been litigated, as well as claims that have been litigated, in previous lawsuit
- The Court may “assess credibility in light of the maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ... defined as ‘false in one thing, false in everything.’”
- “This Court has held that ‘more than a denial of promotion as a result of a dispute over qualifications’ must be shown to prove pretext.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)
941 F.2d 154, 163 (3d Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Present SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge. *
The petition for rehearing filed by appellants in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Chief Judge Sloviter would grant in banc rehearing for the reasons set forth in her attached Statement Sur Denial of Rehearing In Bane.
Judge Roth would grant in banc rehearing and joins in Chief Judge Sloviter’s attached Statement.