# Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Franklin and Marshall College

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · November 29, 1985 · 775 F.2d 110

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474094

## Case

- **Full name:** EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellee, v. FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** November 29, 1985
- **Citations:** 775 F.2d 110
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Adams
- **Judges:** Adams, Aldisert, Stapleton, Mansmann
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9474094

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding materials related to other tenure candidates in a “similar time frame” were “relevant and not overbroad” in EEOC’s investigation of charge alleging discriminatory denial of tenure because they might provide useful comparison data and help determine whether there was a …
- finding EEOC request to use records of all tenure candidates over a three and one-half year period for comparative analysis to not be overbroad

## Opinion text

*122 STATEMENT SUR DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
ADAMS, Acting Chief Judge.
I would grant rehearing in banc because of the significant First Amendment implications this case holds for our colleges and universities as well as the division among the circuit courts of appeals. Federal court review of university decisions carries serious consequences for academic freedom. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 , 77 S.Ct. 1203 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 (1957); Galda v. Rutgers, 772 F.2d 1060 (3d Cir.1985) (Adams, J., dissenting). The tenure decision at issue here reduces in essence to the faculty’s determination of who may teach, one of what Justice Frankfurter referred to as “ ‘the four essential freedoms of a university.’ ” Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 263 , 77 S.Ct. at 1218 . Yet the discovery order upheld by the panel allows for a broad sweep of files revealing the internal debate over tenure votes, without any demonstration of special'need. In recognition of the threat this may pose to unrestrained discussion within the academic community, two other circuit courts of appeals have fashioned contrasting approaches to that adopted by the panel here. Given this split in authority, and given the importance of the issue, I believe the matter merits the consideration of the entire court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474094. Public record. Not legal advice.