Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

September 3, 1998

Johnstown's affirmative action director sues UPJ and president over race and sex discrimination

The Johnstown campus's affirmative action director has sued the campus and its president, Albert Etheridge, for race and sex discrimination.

UPJ Affirmative Action Director Clea Hollis, who is African American, charges Etheridge and the Johnstown campus with sex discrimination in hiring, race discrimination in employment and retaliatory harassment, deprivation of civil rights and sex discrimination in employment, sexual harassment and retaliation.

After Etheridge became UPJ president in June 1994, the lawsuit states, Hollis was demoted from the president's cabinet to a mid-level administrative position, her hours were cut from full time to part time, she was excluded from campus functions and her office was moved from the president's complex to another part of campus.

Hollis's three-count civil action, filed July 23 in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, claims Hollis was harassed because she protested her demotion and opposed Etheridge's views on affirmative action.

According to the lawsuit, Etheridge publicly gave "lip service" to affirmative action but told Hollis "on numerous occasions that he did not believe in affirmative action and that he would do everything possible to avoid implementing its principles," contrary to Pitt policy.

Hollis blames Etheridge for the controversial failure of a 1997 search for a new UPJ vice president for academic affairs.

Months of work by a campus search committee went down the drain when a Provost's office review found, after the committee had recommended finalists, that the search failed to meet Pitt affirmative action guidelines. UPJ re-opened the search several months later.

Hollis claims Etheridge "hindered and handicapped" her from performing her duties in connection with the search, then asked her to fabricate her report to the provost and ultimately tried to blame her for the search's failure — "whereas the particular restrictions imposed by Dr. Etheridge were the direct cause of that failure," the lawsuit states.

A spokesperson for Etheridge said Pitt attorneys have advised him not to comment publicly on the lawsuit.

Hollis's lawyers likewise have advised her not to comment. One of those lawyers, Robert A. Cohen of Pittsburgh, noted that Pitt has until early October to respond to the lawsuit.

Hollis is seeking compensation for lost earnings past, present and future; damages for emotional distress and legal fees, and compensatory damages. Cohen said he could not estimate the total amount of money Hollis is seeking.

Ken Service, Pitt director of communications, released the following written statement: "The University believes that Ms. Hollis has always been treated fairly and that neither it nor any of its administrators have acted in a discriminatory manner towards her or otherwise. The University and its administrators have been and continue to be committed to the principles of diversity and affirmative action. However, it is the University's policy not to comment on the merits of cases in litigation. Accordingly, while the University is fully prepared to defend against the allegations contained in the lawsuit, we can offer no further comment at this time." Hollis was named affirmative action director under Etheridge's predecessor as UPJ president, Frank Blackington, whom the lawsuit says was "a firm believer in and supporter of affirmative action." Under Blackington's administration, the lawsuit states, UPJ's affirmative action program "operated in a highly satisfactory manner and with full cooperation from the president and the Pitt-Johnstown administration." Although Hollis was the only woman and only minority member in a UPJ cabinet-level position, the campus administration planned to redress the imbalance as administrative openings were created, according to the lawsuit.

The Pittsburgh campus has continuously supported affirmative action and minority rights "in policy and in practice," and UPJ "was in full accord with the ideals and principles of the main campus" under Blackington, the lawsuit claims.

But Hollis says UPJ policy began to change when Etheridge succeeded Blackington. "This divergence," the lawsuit states, "has resulted both from the expressed opposition to affirmative action and minority rights on the part of Dr. Etheridge and also from Dr. Etheridge's official and personal hostility toward the plaintiff." Hollis's lawsuit alleges, among other things, that:

* Etheridge, during his first meeting with Hollis at a June 1994 reception for UPJ cabinet-level officials and Pittsburgh campus administrators, told Hollis to go to the president's house with Mrs. Etheridge so he could "get down to business" with the male administrators present, including Mark Nordenberg.

* The UPJ president excluded Hollis, while still a member of Etheridge's cabinet, from the president's box during special events at the Pasquerilla Performing Arts Center. All other cabinet members and their wives were invited to sit in the box.

* In December 1994, Eth-eridge downgraded Hollis's position from cabinet-level rank to middle administration "despite the necessity for direct contact between the affirmative action administrator and the president" and ordered her office moved from the president's complex in Biddle Hall to the new Blackington Hall. He also took away Hollis's access to a secretary, changed the lock on her door and had his son's books stacked in front of her filing cabinet to hinder her access.

* Etheridge told Hollis in July 1996 he was eliminating her position and discharging her. He offered her a choice between reporting to UPJ's Human Resources office as a clerk, an entry-level position, or taking severance pay and leaving Pitt. After appealing to Human Resources, Hollis was offered the option of continuing as affirmative action director part-time, reporting to UPJ's vice president for financial affairs. She accepted but, because of the nature and volume of her duties, Hollis worked far more than the required 22.5 hours per week. Because she was classified as "exempt staff," Hollis was not entitled to overtime pay and so her compensation was "grossly inadequate." Besides suffering professionally and financially, the lawsuit claims, Hollis "has suffered and will hereafter suffer from severe emotional distress, including emotional and psychic pain, embarrassment, stress, loss of self-esteem, mental anguish, grief, and generalized anxiety" because of the harassment, discrimination and retaliation she received from UPJ and Etheridge.

— Bruce Steele

Filed under: Feature,Volume 31 Issue 1

Leave a Reply