This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked for University (D) as a research lab technician in the biochemistry department for six years. P's direct supervisor was Cohen. Painter was the department chair of biochemistry and Wilson was the Assistant Director of Human Resources. In 1988, when P reported to Cohen an incident in which Painter yelled and screamed at a female employee, Carr. P complained to Cohen that Painter 'can't continue to abuse women in this manner.' Cohen did not remember whether P complained of Painter's alleged sex discrimination. Painter began to retaliate against her after she reported this single incident. P admittedly and erroneously disposed of radiation in the regular wastebasket, rather than in the radioactive materials wastebasket. The Radiation Safety Committee placed P on probation, allowing her to use radiation only under supervision. The committee ultimately indefinitely revoked her privilege to use radiation when it found her incompetent not only in disposal but also in use of the radioactive materials. P was demoted and suffered a salary reduction. Cohen warned P that if she failed to have her radiation privileges reinstated by December 6, 1990, she would be terminated. P resigned one week after receiving this memorandum. P argues that D imposed an exaggerated discipline on her as compared to that resulting from other more serious radiation problems by co-workers. P contends that this was the result of Painter's involvement and control of the committee wrote a memorandum to Cohen, recommending that P be restricted from the tissue culture facility. This along with several additional incidents, including threatening her with scientific misconduct for using her own blood in an experiment, writing her up for receiving personal mail at work, and reporting her for ordering mice from another technician's protocol, presented a pattern of retaliation. P sued D. P presented evidence on the First Amendment retaliation, sex discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Nothing was presented for Title VII. P failed to object when the judge did not instruct the jury on Title VII. The jury gave P the verdict on emotional distress for $65,000. The jury found in favor of the Ds on the Title VII sex discrimination claim and on the First Amendment retaliation claim. The district court dismissed P's state law claims against Wilson and Painter in their official capacities and dismissed her Title VII claims against Wilson and Painter in their individual capacities. P moved for a new trial and appealed the denial of the new trial. Painter appealed the verdict against him.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.