Discriminatory Mentoring

The Scientist, May 16, 1994, page 3), the suggestion was made that the significance of the most precedent-setting aspect of Jensvold v. Shalala (that mentoring is covered under the discrimination law) for other women professionals is unclear. That is not correct. The most precedent-setting aspect of Jensvold v. Shalala to date came in the August 1993 summary judgment ruling on the case, not in the 1994 trial. The August 1993 ruling

Margaret Jensvold
Sep 4, 1994
In the article "Sex Discrimination Case Hinges On Concept Of Mentoring" (F. Hoke, The Scientist, May 16, 1994, page 3), the suggestion was made that the significance of the most precedent-setting aspect of Jensvold v. Shalala (that mentoring is covered under the discrimination law) for other women professionals is unclear. That is not correct.

The most precedent-setting aspect of Jensvold v. Shalala to date came in the August 1993 summary judgment ruling on the case, not in the 1994 trial. The August 1993 ruling found that mentoring is protected under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That ruling is unaffected by subsequent events.

On April 1, a unanimous jury of eight Maryland citizens ruled that David Rubinow's treatment of Margaret Jensvold at the National Institute of Mental Health constituted discriminatory mentoring, as well as sex discrimination and retaliation. This was precedent-setting in that it was the first time,...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?