UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EEOC

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
88-493
Petitioner 
University of Pennsylvania
Respondent 
EEOC
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

Rosalie Tung was an Asian-American professor who believed that she was denied tenure because of her sex and her race. To investigate her claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked the University for access to Tung's confidential peer review file. Citing the protection of academic freedom, the University refused to cooperate so as to avoid breaching the confidentiality promised to reviewers.

Question 

Does requiring a university to disclose confidential peer review materials in an investigation violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion 
Decision: 9 votes for EEOC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

A unanimous Court held that the need to ferret out invidious discrimination served a compelling government interest which justified inspection of confidential files. Since the EEOC was not interested in forcing the University to accept specific standards for promotion and it did not attempt to control the content of speech on campus, Justice Blackmun dismissed Pennsylvania's argument that the EEOC's actions violated academic freedom.

Cite this Page
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EEOC. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 22 October 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_493>.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EEOC, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_493 (last visited October 22, 2014).
"UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EEOC," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed October 22, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_493.