A judge has allowed part of a fourth amended complaint against Pitt by Norman Wang, the School of Medicine professor who penned a controversial white paper that criticized the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts in the medical field, to proceed.
The paper was originally published in March 2020 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, but was retracted later that year after heavy criticism from cardiologists. Wang was subsequently removed from his position as program director of the UPMC Electrophysiology Fellowship.
His original lawsuit in December 2020, claimed Pitt, UPMC, the American Heart Association, University of Pittsburgh Physicians (which is owned by UPMC), and three doctors who work for UPMC and teach at Pitt violated his First Amendment rights, and also claimed defamation for statements allegedly claiming Wang misused academic sources. Pitt was completely dismissed from the original suit and two amended complaints.
In the fourth amended complaint, Wang argued that his article served as a protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), as did a conversation he had with his supervisors, Samir Saba and Kathryn Berlacher (who have dual appointments with Pitt and UPMC), in which he told them the selection processes for the graduate medical education programs were violating federal law because of the racial and ethnic preferences they employed.
Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual “because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Title VII also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who has opposed an employer's discriminatory conduct or “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing.”
Pitt argued that Wang's Title VII and PHRA retaliation claims must fail because he has not alleged that he engaged in a protected activity by writing a general article concerning a controversial issue.
Pitt also has repeatedly said that the actions taken against Wang were done by UPMC, which has been a separate legal entity from the University of Pittsburgh since 1998, and that the actions by the doctors were taken under their roles as UPMC physicians, not as faculty in the School of Medicine.
In August, U.S. District Judge Marylyn J. Horan dismissed Pitt from the Title VII complaint regarding the JAHA article, but not those related to Wang’s meeting with Saba and Berlacher. The University had no comment on the latest developments in the case.
Knowles debate fallout
Pitt has dropped its demand for more than $18,000 in security costs from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Pitt College Republicans, which hosted the April 18 debate at the O’Hara Student Center between conservative commentator Michael Knowles and libertarian journalist Brad Polumbo.
This summer, the Alliance Defending Freedom — a conservative nonprofit legal group that focuses on free speech issues — sent a letter to Pitt saying the charges violate the two groups’ constitutional rights.
The debate on “Should transgenderism be regulated by law?” sparked a large protest outside the building, during which the University closed some buildings for a time. A smoke bomb and fireworks were also set off during the protest, but no injuries were reported. A married couple from Regent Square was indicted in July by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh in connection with the smoke bombs and fireworks.
A University spokesperson told The Pitt News that the University rescinded the fee because of a miscommunication. “Upon reviewing communications among the parties — the University of Pittsburgh, the College Republicans student group and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute — the University concluded that there may have been a miscommunication about the $18,000 security fee,” the spokesperson said. “Given that, the University has rescinded the fee.”
— Susan Jones
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.