Colleen Crangle v. Stanford University
Published: Jul. 8, 2000 | Result Date: Mar. 30, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: C9720966 Verdict – $545,000
Judge
Court
USDC Northern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Daniel M. Siegel
(Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta)
Anne B. Weills
(Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta)
Defendant
Michael T. Lucey
(Gordon & Rees LLP)
Facts
FACTS ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff, a 45-year-old scientist with expertise in human-machine interaction and the philosophy of language, joined the staff of the Section on Medical Informatics (SMI) at Stanford University School of Medicine as a senior research scientist in early 1995. Her work there involved developing computer interface programs that would allow physicians to readily access medical research information and patient data while actively engaging in seeing and treating patients. During the course of her employment at SMI, plaintiff received invitations to lecture at, and collaborate with, several significant entities, including the Veterans Administration, Microsoft and the Government of Singapore. She began to develop proposals for new grants. Plaintiff's supervisors initially encouraged plaintiff to seek new grants and develop her independent research; however, after consulting with her colleague, senior research scientist Lawrence Fagan, M.D., plaintiff's supervisors restricted plaintiff's work. Plaintiff complained to her two male supervisors, Mark Musen and Ted Shortliffe, that they were engaging in gender discrimination and that she was the only senior research scientist whose research had been restricted and whose funding efforts were to include funding for a colleague (Fagan) on a non-reciprocal basis. Plaintiff was the only senior research scientist who worked on a half-time basis. Plaintiff had less experience in her field than any of the males in her department. On Dec. 30, 1996, Musen wrote an e-mail to Shortliffe stating that SMI should consider terminating plaintiff immediately. On Mar. 7, 1997, SMI terminated plaintiff on the purported grounds that it lacked funds to pay her salary.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $975,000 at a pretrial settlement conference. Defendant indicated a non-specific five figure offer which the court did not convey to the plaintiff.
Injuries
Emotional distress and economic losses resulting from loss of employment.
Other Information
Judge James Ware granted summary judgment on plaintiff's gender bias claim, ruling that there was no comparable male who received better treatment. The court reasoned that none of the other senior research scientist were comparable because all work full-time, while plaintiff worked on a half-time basis, and because plaintiff had less experience in the field of Medical Informatics than any of the males in her department. Summary judgment was granted as to all claims against individual defendants, Ted Shorliffe and Larry Fagan.
Deliberation
4.5 hours
Poll
8-0 (on all issues)
Length
10 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390