Federal jury finds in favor of Drexel University in case involving doctor alleging retaliation for reporting gender discrimination.

In a significant ruling regarding workplace discrimination, a federal jury has determined that officials at Drexel University did not retaliate against Sharon Griswold, a former emergency room physician and faculty member, for her allegations of gender discrimination. After deliberating for just 90 minutes, the jury unanimously found that during her 13-year tenure, culminating with her departure in early 2020, Griswold was not subjected to a hostile work environment rooted in her gender.

The case was presented before a jury composed of six women and two men in U.S. District Court in Center City. The jury concluded that Drexel University had adhered to civil rights laws designed to protect against sex discrimination in the workplace, asserting that Griswold’s direct supervisor had taken appropriate measures to address her grievances.

Leading up to the trial, Griswold engaged in outreach efforts to garner support from female healthcare professionals, emphasizing the need to address gender bias in a predominantly male field. She utilized social media and sent invitations to her peers in a private Facebook group for female doctors in the Philadelphia area.

During the five-day trial, Griswold contended that her complaints about gender discrimination resulted in emotional suffering and financial loss, particularly alleging that she was denied a promotion to the position of academic vice chair, which she viewed as a crucial step toward a higher-ranking role. In response, Drexel’s defense team argued that Griswold had received several promotions during her time at the university and did not experience any detrimental financial impact. They pointed out that she subsequently accepted positions at Penn State Health and Merck.

Griswold was initially hired by Drexel in 2007 as the first full-time female faculty member in its emergency medicine department. Throughout her tenure, she was involved in patient care and the education of medical residents, as well as launching a master’s program in healthcare simulation.

The jury’s findings come on the heels of Griswold’s allegations that her termination was a direct consequence of her complaints about workplace discrimination. Conversely, Drexel maintained that her layoff, along with a number of other faculty members, was due to the closure of Hahnemann University Hospital in 2019.

Witnesses during the proceedings provided differing accounts of Griswold’s conduct, with some describing her as a highly capable physician and educator, while others indicated that her temperament could be combative at times.

Following the verdict, representatives for both Griswold and Drexel University refrained from commenting on the outcome. As the case illustrates, the complexities surrounding workplace discrimination claims continue to be a pressing issue within academia and other professional realms, highlighting the delicate balance between organizational policies and individual rights.