Duquesne Law School Asserts Bias Plaintiff Was ‘Uncooperative and Combative’
Duquesne University’s law school says in court documents that a former instructor who sued the school did a poor job of overseeing grant funds and “resisted being accountable to anyone in authority.”
The answer (PDF) to the complaint filed by Alice Stewart, filed in federal court in Pennsylvania, denies there was any illegal discrimination, harassment or retaliation. The school contends Stewart was “uncooperative and combative” and even quibbles with her job title, saying she was an administrative employee with part-time teaching duties who was not subject to the school’s grievance procedure for faculty members.
The school has also filed a motion to dismiss (PDF) the suit on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired.
Stewart had alleged in her suit filed last month that the school’s present dean, Kenneth Gormley, retaliated against her because she accused him of sexual harassment when he was a law professor in 2006. The retaliatory acts alleged include an internal audit of her handling of grant funds, a demotion, a cut in pay, and a banishment to an office outside the law school building.
The law school counters that the initial harassment complaint pertained to an alleged comment Gormley made to the school’s then-dean about a rumored relationship between Stewart and another professor when she was a student, and it was made because he was concerned about the effect on another employee. “Specifically, it is denied that there was anything resembling sexual harassment,” the answer says.
Gormley did not initiate the audit, the answer says, and it found that financial records were incomplete, expenditures were not properly tracked, and expenditures were commingled among three programs.
Stewart’s salary was never reduced, the school says, although she was warned that grant deficits could affect pay in the future. The answer also refers to meetings that allegedly confirmed the deficits “were largely caused by substantial and ongoing increases in plaintiff’s salary.”
