Dallas Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, Tex., 885 F.Supp. 915, 927 (N.D.Tex.1995). 3 . McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 116 F.3d 775. · Go Syfert
Search
Dallas Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, Tex., 885 F.Supp. 915, 927 (N.D.Tex.1995). 3 . McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 116 F.3d 775. Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 · …the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him. at p. 776 ✓
66 citation events (47 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ibanez v. Texas A&M (ca5, 2024-10-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Ibanez v. Texas A&M (5×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
State Univ., 592 F. App’x 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rakhshandeh v. TX Tech Univ
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yul Chu v. Mississippi State University (2×)
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goswami v. Depaul University
N.D. Ill. · 2014 · confidence medium
Accord Zahorik, 729 F.2d at 92-93 (“[Tjhere is no common unit of measure by which to judge scholarship”); Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goswami v. Depaul University
N.D. Ill. · 2014 · confidence medium
No. 7, 691 F.3d 134, 148 (2d Cir.2012); Tanik v. Southern Methodist University, 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marvin Thrash v. Miami University (2×)
6th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Page 16 academic tenure decisions are certainly “not . . . exempt from judicial scrutiny under Title VII,” Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), they are generally entitled to more deference than employment decisions in other settings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yul Chu v. Mississippi State University
N.D. Miss. · 2014 · confidence medium
Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997) (internal footnotes omitted) (citing Zahorik v. Cornell Univ., 729 F.2d 85, 92-93 (2d Cir.1984); Kumar v. Univ. of Mass., 774 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir.1985)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Georgios Lazarou v. Mississippi State University (3×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Burrell, 482 F.3d at 411-12 . 2 “To establish a prima facie case in the context of a denial of tenure, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2) he was qualified for tenure, and (3) he was denied tenure in circumstances permitting an [inference] of discrimination.” Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 775-76 (5th Cir. 1997).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Georgios Lazarou v. Mississippi State University (3×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Burrell, 482 F.3d at 411-12 . 2 “To establish a prima facie case in the context of a denial of tenure, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2) he was qualified for tenure, and (3) he was denied tenure in circumstances permitting an [inference] of discrimination.” Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 775-76 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lazarou v. Mississippi State University
N.D. Miss. · 2013 · confidence medium
Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997) (internal footnotes omitted) (citing Zahorik v. Cornell Univ., 729 F.2d 85, 92-93 (2d Cir.1984); Kumar v. Univ. of Mass., 114 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. J.A.M. Distributing Co.
E.D. Tex. · 2009 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains its burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him.” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 , 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 ; Nasty 492 F.3d at 593; Laxton, 333 F.3d at 578 ; Sandstad, 309 F.3d at 897 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stevenson v. Williamson
M.D. La. · 2008 · confidence medium
Lawrence v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Gal *552 veston, 163 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir.1999); Tanik v. Southern Methodist University, 116 F.3d 775, 775 (5th Cir.1997); Givs v. City of Eunice, 512 F.Supp.2d 522, 542 (W.D.La.2007).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. Texas Department of Transportation
E.D. Tex. · 2007 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains its burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him.” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 522 U.S. 1015 , 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 ; Nasty 492 F.3d at 593; Wheeler, 415 F.3d at 405 ; Laxton, 333 F.3d at 578; Sandstad, 309 F.3d at 897 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Givs v. City of Eunice
W.D. La. · 2007 · confidence medium
Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 775 (5th Cir.1997); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 26 F.3d 1277 , 1284 n. 7 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
E.D. Tex. · 2004 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains its burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie ease essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is *1074 left with the ultimate burden which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him.” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 , 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 ; Laxton, 333 F.3d at 578 ; West, 330 F.3d at 385 ; Sandstad, 309 F.3d at 897 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. County Bancshares, Inc.
E.D. Tex. · 2004 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains its burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him.” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 , 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 ; Laxton, 333 F.3d at 578 ; West, 330 F.3d at 385 ; Sandstad, 309 F.3d at 897 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Notes: 1 Contrary to the majority's assertion, the dissent does not claim that Dobbs-Weinstein relied exclusively on tenure decisions, but that it relied primarily on them. 2 Other circuits also have acknowledged the unique nature of tenure decisions See Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997); Brousard-Norcross v. Augustana Coll.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eugene v. Rumsfeld
S.D. Tex. · 2001 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains its burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden which has never left [her]: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against [her].” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 , 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 ; Evans, 246 F.3d at 350 ; Bauer, 169 F.3d at 966 ; Messer, 130 F.3d at 137 ; Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health &…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
W.D. La. · 2001 · confidence medium
Branch at Galveston, 163 F.3d 309 , 311 (5th Cir.1999) (citing Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 775 (5th Cir.1997)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Huang v. BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (2×) also: Cited "see"
La. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Tanik, 116 F.3d 775, 775-776 (5th Cir.1997) citation omitted.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Kroger Co.
S.D. Tex. · 1999 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains its burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie. case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him.” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 , 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Bauer, 169 F.3d at 966 ; Messer, 130 F.3d at 137 ; Grimes, 102 F.3d at 140 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee v. Vanderbilt University, Defendant-Appellee (2×)
6th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Namenwirth v. Board of Regents, 769 F.2d 1235, 1240 (7th Cir.1985) (requiring the plaintiff to show as a fourth element of the prima facie case that "an applicant not in the protected class was granted tenure”); Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.) (as final element of a prima facie case, plaintiff must show that "he was denied tenure in circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence v. Univ TX Med Br Galv
5th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.3 Summary judgment is appropriate if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”4 “The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavit, if any, which it believes d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 79 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 438, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,712 Kathy Lawrence v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Eric Van Sonnenberg, M.D., as Chairman of the Department of Radiology, Utmb and in His Personal Capacity Gerhard Wittich, M.D., as Vice-Chairman of the Department of Radiology and in His Personal Capacity
5th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. 1 See Tanik v. Southern Methodist University, 116 F.3d 775, 775 (5th Cir.1997); LaPierre v. Benson Nissan, Inc., 86 F.3d 444 , 448 n. 2 (5th Cir.1996); Wallace v. Texas Tech.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dupré v. Harris County Hospital District
S.D. Tex. · 1998 · confidence medium
If the defendant sustains it burden of production, “the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden.” Tanik v. Southern Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 600 , 139 L.Ed.2d 488 (1997); accord Messer, 130 F.3d at 137; Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Babaoye v. Board of Supervisors
5th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Vasudevan v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund
5th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (listing elements).
cited Cited "see" White v. Burlington Northern
6th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ta nik v. S. M ethodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775 , 776 In fact, as will be mentioned again below, the Supreme Court has (5th Cir. 19 97); Brousard-Norcross v. Augustana Coll.
discussed Cited "see" Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2×)
6th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997); Brousard-Norcross v. Augustana Coll.
discussed Cited "see" Lawrence v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (2×)
5th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tanik v. Southern Methodist University, 116 F.3d 775, 775 (5th Cir.1997); LaPierre v. Benson Nissan, Inc., 86 F.3d 444 , 448 n. 2 (5th Cir.1996); Wallace v. Texas Tech.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sara Eigen Figal v. The Vanderbilt University
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir. 1997); Bina v. Providence Coll., 39 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1038 (1995); Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F.2d 60, 67 (2d Cir. 1980); Villaneuva v. Wellesley Coll., 930 F.2d 124, 129 (1st Cir. 1991); Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1326 (6th Cir. 1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Spaeth v. Georgetown University
D.D.C. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Tanik v. S. Methodist Univ., 116 F.3d 775, 776 (5th Cir.1997); Kumar v. Bd. of Trustees, Univ. of Mass., 774 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1985); Zahorik v. Cornell Univ., 729 F.2d 85, 92-94 (2d Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dallas Fire Fighters Ass’n
v.
City of Dallas, Tex., 885 F.Supp. 915, 927 (N.D.Tex.1995). 3 . McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824
116 F.3d 775
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16290
1997 WL 332515
PER CURIAM:

Murat M. Tanik, a native of Turkey, instituted this action against his former employer, Southern Methodist University (SMU) and Jeffrey Kennington, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of his race and national origin. Tanik asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1985, and § 1986, and Texas Labor code § 21.001, et seq. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. Tanik appeals.

The elements of the Title VII claim and the § 1983 claim are identical. The court evaluates these claims according to a single analysis. [1] Similarly, the Texas statute is basically identical with, and has been interpreted in conformance with, Title VII. [2]

As is well known, in a Title VII case the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. [3] To establish a prima[*776] facie case in the context of a denial of tenure, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2) he was qualified for tenure, and (3) he was denied tenure in circumstances permitting an interference of discrimination. [4] If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, then he has raised a presumption of discrimination and the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action. [5] If the defendant meets this burden by presenting evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the employment action, then the presumption raised by the plaintiffs prima facie case essentially disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden, which has never left him: that of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him. [6]

Other circuits have recognized that tenure decisions in colleges and universities involve considerations that set them apart from other kinds of employment decisions. [7] Those factors are: (1) tenure contracts require unusual commitments as to time and collegial relationships, (2) academic tenure decisions are often non-competitive, (3) tenure decisions are usually highly decentralized, (4) the number of factors considered in tenure decisions is quite extensive, and (5) tenure decisions are a source of unusually great disagreement. [8]

Tenure decisions are not, however, exempt from judicial scrutiny under Title VII. To prove a prima facie case, a plaintiff may be able to show “departures from procedural regularity”, “conventional evidence of bias on the part of individuals involved”, or that the plaintiff is found to be qualified for tenure by “some significant portion of the departmental faculty, referrants or other scholars in the particular field”. [9]

Considering all the evidence, in the light of the unique nature of the tenure decision, we conclude that there is no evidence that unlawful discrimination played any role in SMU’s decision to deny tenure to Tanik and that SMU presented legitimate non-diserimi-natory reasons for the denial of tenure. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

.Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 26 F.3d 1277, 1284 n. 1 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1149, 115 S.Ct. 1099, 130 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1995).

2

. Dallas Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, Tex., 885 F.Supp. 915, 927 (N.D.Tex.1995).

3

. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

4

. Zahorik v. Cornell University, 729 F.2d 85, 92 (2nd Cir.1984).

5

. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

6

. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hides, 509 U.S. 502, 509-12, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2748-50, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993).

7

. Zahorik v. Cornell University, 729 F.2d 85, 92 (2nd Cir.1984); Kumar v. University of Massachusetts, 774 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir.1985).

9

.Id. at 93-94.