Federal jury finds in favor of Drexel, rejecting doctor’s claim of punishment for reporting gender discrimination.

In a significant civil rights case, a federal jury found that Drexel University medical school officials did not engage in retaliatory actions against Dr. Sharon Griswold, a former emergency room physician and professor, despite her claims of gender discrimination. After a five-day trial in the U.S. District Court, the jury, composed of six women and two men, concluded that Griswold was not subjected to a gender-based hostile work environment during her 13-year tenure, which ended with her dismissal in early 2020.

The jurors determined that Drexel’s administration acted in compliance with civil rights laws governing workplace equality, asserting that the university made reasonable efforts to address Griswold’s grievances about her working conditions. The case has drawn attention to issues of gender bias in the medical field, particularly in the traditionally male-dominated area of emergency medicine. Leading up to the trial, Griswold actively sought support from fellow female medical professionals, rallying attendance from peers and leveraging social media platforms to underscore her stance against gender bias.

Griswold, who joined Drexel in 2007 as its first full-time female professor in the emergency medicine department, argued that she faced significant emotional distress and financial ramifications following her complaints about discrimination. She asserted that her alleged denial of a promotion to a pivotal academic position constituted a barrier to her career advancement and future earnings potentially amounting to millions.

However, attorneys representing Drexel contested her claims. They highlighted that Griswold had previously received several promotions and did not demonstrate financial harm, citing her subsequent roles at Penn State Health and Merck after her departure from Drexel. The defense also pointed out that her termination aligned with the closing of Hahnemann University Hospital, which resulted in layoffs across numerous faculty members.

Throughout the trial, evidence was presented regarding Griswold’s professional interactions and the dynamics within her department. Former colleagues corroborated her skill as a physician and educator while also mentioning instances of her challenging demeanor in the workplace. A pivotal moment occurred when Griswold expressed frustration over scheduling conflicts, leading to university officials placing her on paid administrative leave while investigating her conduct.

Testimonies indicated that while disputes with colleagues occurred, they revolved around administrative issues rather than direct gender discrimination. The university maintained that it took her complaints seriously but found no substantial evidence of the misconduct claimed.

Drexel leaders reiterated their support for Griswold after her complaints were made, with her department chair nominating her for professional development opportunities. Ultimately, the jury’s decision to side with Drexel University demonstrates the complexities surrounding claims of discrimination and the legal interpretation of employee rights within academic institutions.

With ongoing discussions about gender equity in medicine, this case may have implications for how similar disputes are approached and adjudicated in the future, as the healthcare profession continues to confront issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in its workforce.