University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
United States Supreme Court case
University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 493 U.S. 182 (1990), is a US labor law case of the US Supreme Court holding neither common law evidentiary privilege, nor First Amendment academic freedom protects peer review materials that are relevant to charges of racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions.
Facts
Rosalie Tung, then an associate professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, was denied a tenure position by a tenure review board. Tung alleged that she had been the victim of sexual harassment by the board chairman, and that the board discriminated against her Chinese-American heritage.
Tung then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC has a broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The EEOC requested, subpoenaed, then sued to enforce its subpoena of Tung's tenure review file and the tenure review files of five male faculty members. The university refused to provide review materials, citing constitutional protection under the First Amendment and the societal interest inherent in the peer review process.
Judgment
Lower courts
The EEOC applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for enforcement of its subpoena.
The public source identifies “University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” as united States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around University, Pennsylvania and Equal.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”, the useful work is to connect “united States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7896099. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1990.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission primary sources, University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission archive and University research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.