Mireille M. Lee v. The Vanderbilt University
M2024-00603-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2025Background
- Dr. Mireille M. Lee was hired as a tenure-track assistant professor by Vanderbilt University in 2008 and applied for tenure in 2015-16 and 2018-19, both times being denied.
- Vanderbilt’s tenure process is governed by specific Faculty Manual policies, requiring demonstration of excellence in research, teaching, and service, and includes multi-step internal and external review.
- After denial, Dr. Lee initially claimed gender discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract but later limited her suit to breach of contract after her other claims were dismissed under the Tennessee Human Rights Act.
- Dr. Lee argued Vanderbilt failed to follow its own tenure review procedures and exhibited bias, focusing particularly on the actions of the Promotion and Tenure Review Committee (PTRC).
- The trial court used a deferential standard for academic promotion disputes and granted summary judgment for Vanderbilt, finding no substantial procedural departure or evidence of discrimination or bias; Dr. Lee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Vanderbilt substantially depart from accepted academic norms or procedural regularity in denying Lee tenure? | Vanderbilt did not follow its own procedures nor academic norms, prejudicing Lee's tenure applications. | University followed prescribed procedures; any alleged errors were not substantial or outcome-altering. | No substantial departure; judgment for Vanderbilt. |
| Was the PTRC memorandum an unauthorized ex parte communication violating university procedure? | The PTRC’s memorandum to the Provost was improper and should not have been included or hidden from the Dean. | PTRC was required to submit a recommendation to the Provost; there was no procedural breach or concealment. | PTRC communication was proper and required; no violation. |
| Was the PTRC memorandum factually misleading about Lee's scholarly work? | PTRC memorandum misrepresented Lee’s publication record, undermining her tenure case. | PTRC accurately reflected Lee’s peer-reviewed publication record as shown in her own CV and dossier. | No misrepresentation; PTRC’s statements were accurate and within academic judgment. |
| Was retaliation for prior complaints a factor in Lee's second tenure denial? | Denial was motivated by retaliation for prior grievance and procedural unfairness. | Retaliation claim was barred by statute and waived on appeal; no evidence of procedural breach presented. | Retaliation claim not considered due to waiver/statutory bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (states standard for summary judgment in Tennessee and the non-movant's burden)
- Dick Broad. Co. of Tenn. v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2013) (explains summary judgment review and procedure)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. 2006) (de novo review for contract interpretation)
- Christenberry v. Tipton, 160 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2005) (ascertaining parties' contractual intent)
- Duke v. Duke, 563 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)
- Ethridge v. Estate of Ethridge, 427 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (waiver for failing to raise in statement of issues)
--- Note: The key case Figal v. Vanderbilt Univ. is cited extensively in the opinion and forms the core standard but lacks a conventional reporter citation, so is omitted from the Key Cases Cited section as instructed.