TEACHER'S PETBackgroundProfessor Short had been a full$-$time faculty member since the $1985$ Spring Semester.Throughout her employment she, as well asother faculty members, was evaluated for teaching effectiveness, scholarly and professional activity and service to the College and community. Those who evaluated her performance expressed concern about her activities and progress in the areas mentioned above. On April $13,1987,$ the Professor gave birth two months prematurely. The child remained in the hospital for three monthsand one week due to complications from the birth. The Professor did not perform any work for the College during this time. The Dean of the School for which she worked sent her a letter on August $27,1987.$ He informed the Short that her prospects for continuation on the faculty were not good unless she could demonstrate a dramatic change over the next semester.Short informed the Dean that she was going to bring her infant to campus during the Fall semester. The daughter had chronic lungdisease and needed to be nursed. The administration agreed to not require Short to teach back$-$to$-$back courses due to her nursing but required her to teach a class that started at $8$:$30$ a$.$m$.$ Short stated that she would prefer teaching back$-$to$-$back classes over an $8$:$30$ class because she had to nurse her baby and commute for an hour and a half. Her appeal was denied. On January $18,1988,$ the Dean recommended the Professor Short not be reappointed for the $1988-1989$ academic year.Soon after, the college President informed Short that he would not reappoint her.

Short's Position

Short claims sex discrimination against her by her employer. Her qualifications are supported by three years of employment and favorable recommendations from two departmental faculty members and the Faculty Promotion Retention and Tenure Committee. Further, Short's Department Chairperson was obviously biased against her. Referring to her need to nurse her baby on campus, he told her that she should "get a pump." He went on to state to her that women with babies who work are part of the reason society is falling apart. After Short learned of the President's recommendation but before she filed a grievance, the Chairperson told her that he "would advise very strongly against charging sex discrimination." After the reappointment of the Professor was denied, the University sought applicants with qualifications like hers.

The University's Position

Short had difficulty in all of the areas examined in evaluations of all of the faculty members. She was made aware of her poor performance throughout her time of employment and given reasonable time to improve. She was not reappointed because she was not qualified. Those employees who were formally involved in the reappointment process did not display any sex bias against the Professor. The Department Chairperson was in no way involved in the formal process. Lastly, the University notes that Short was ultimately replaced by another women

TEACHER'S PET

$1.$ Was Short provided adequate warning? Explain.

$2.$ How much accommodation should the University have provided Short?

$3.$ Analyze the comments of the Department Head.

$4.$ How would you rule in this case. Why?