The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues
Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues

Former professor loses discrimination suit

By Jaime Winston

Former U Research Assistant Diane Xie cannot sue the U on claims that she was discriminated against for being a Chinese woman because she was never an actual employee of the U, the Tenth Circuit Court ruled July 5.

Xie worked as a research associate professor for the department of civil and environmental engineering from the fall of 2000 to 2002, when in 2003 her position was not renewed.

After her dismissal, Xie filled suit against the U stating her boss, Department Chairman Lawrence Reaveley, had discriminated against Xie and other minorities within the department, according to a complaint filed in District Court in January 2005.

The document also says Xie was locked out of her office without notice in July of 2003, and later when she was let into the office found many of her personal items missing.

Xie stated that “other white male research professors had not been treated in this like manner when they left the department,” and that they were given other privileges she wasn’t.

The U repudiated Xie’s claims of discrimination, stating that her position wasn’t renewed only because Xie was unable to obtain any research grants, U representative and Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Landward stated in court documents.

Landward admitted that U employees relocated Xie’s belongings, but only after she was given several months to remove them.

Xie’s claims of Title VII discrimination were not considered in a 2006 District Court case against the U, which Xie lost, or her subsequent appeal in the Tenth Circuit because both courts found Xie was not an official employee of the U.

In February 2006, the District Court granted the U’s motion to dismiss after applying a multi-factor test to see if Xie was a U employee. One of the factors was payment. While she did not receive salary, nor were social security or taxes paid on her behalf, the U did agree to give Xie a portion of grant money she received. However, she didn’t receive any grants.

According to a court document, Xie’s representative said, “The University attempts to convince this court that the plaintiff was not an employee simply because she was not paid. The University lists as employees even unpaid faculty.”

Xie showed that unpaid employees are listed on the employee directory.

However, the main focus of the test was to see if the U controlled Xie’s work. The court concluded, “The University had minimal ability?to control the means and manner of Dr. Xie’s work.”

Xie argued that all professors work independently.

“It is true that the U affords its faculty substantial independence. However, the record establishes that the relationship between the University and Dr. Xie was far more attenuated than that of an educational institution and its faculty,” said U attorney Clifford Petersen.

The Tenth Circuit Court issued a similar ruling earlier this month siding with the U’s position that Xie was not an employee.

Xie had sought a statement from Reaveley about her employee status, according to court documents, but the request was never fulfilled.

Petersen argued that Xie never indicated in court papers that she needed information from Reaveley to prove her employment status, and said that Xie would have been in as good a position to depose as Reaveley was.

Both Xie and Reaveley declined to comment for this article.

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

The Daily Utah Chronicle welcomes comments from our community. However, the Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to accept or deny user comments. A comment may be denied or removed if any of its content meets one or more of the following criteria: obscenity, profanity, racism, sexism, or hateful content; threats or encouragement of violent or illegal behavior; excessively long, off-topic or repetitive content; the use of threatening language or personal attacks against Chronicle members; posts violating copyright or trademark law; and advertisement or promotion of products, services, entities or individuals. Users who habitually post comments that must be removed may be blocked from commenting. In the case of duplicate or near-identical comments by the same user, only the first submission will be accepted. This includes comments posted across multiple articles. You can read more about our comment policy at https://dailyutahchronicle.com/comment-faqs/.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *