Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1980 [PAGE 506]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1979]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

495

the: emergency room of the "Illinois Research Hospital," was diagnosed as having acute indigestion, was prescribed a laxative, and was released as a patient. It is further alleged that twenty-four hours later plaintiff was admitted to another hospital and was operated on for a ruptured appendix with generalized peritonitis. Recovery is sought on the theory that the University was negligent in failing to use proper diagnostic procedures and in failing to diagnose plaintiff's condition of appendicitis correctly. The university counsel has recommended that he be authorized to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate, including the employment of special counsel, to protect the University's interests in this matter. I concur.

On motion of Mr. Howard, authority was given as recommended by the following vote: Aye, Mr. !Forsyth, Mr. Howard, Mr. Lenz, Mrs. Shepherd, Mr. Stone, Mr. Velasquez; no, none; absent, Dr. Donoghue, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Neal, Governor Thompson. (The student advisory vote was: Aye, Mr. Grady, Mr. Sobotka; no, none; absent, Miss Wyncott.)

Litigation Initiated by Geraldine G. Cannon

(25) A complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 79 C 5009) by Geraldine G. Cannon, an unsuccessful applicant for admission to the entering class in the College of Medicine for September 1975. T h e named defendants include the University of Illinois; the University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School; Loyola University of Chicago; Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center; and Southern Illinois University. Also designated defendants under ficticious names are "the admissions committee and officials of each medical school," who are sued individually and in their official capacities. T o date, service has not been effected upon th= University of Illinois or upon any of the University "admissions committee and officials." The complaint alleges that the plaintiff timely applied for admission to the September 1975 entering class at the College of Medicine and presented a college grade-point average and medical college admission test scores which were within the range presented by other applicants accepted for admission. It is also a ' l c e d that the plaintiff presented evidence of subjective personal qualifications whi"h were within the tenor and quality of subjective personal qualifications presented bv other applicants who were accepted for admission. It is alleged that the plaintiff's denial of admission to the College of Medicine was based on her sex and age in violation of Title I X of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and in violation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. T h e relief sought includes the granting of a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from denying plaintiff admission to the College of Medicine utilizing the criterion of her age or sex or any other criterion which has not been shown to predict validly success in the educational program, prohibiting the defendants from continuing to fail and refuse to evaluate the plaintiffs application and credentials for admission and to admit the plaintiff to the College of Medicine. A declaration is also sought that the action of the defendants in permitting the plaintiff's age or sex to be utilized as a material criterion for the denial of her application violated her rights against discrimination under the Age Discrimination Act and Title IX. In addition, damages in the amount of $1,515,000 are sought plus reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The university counsel has recommended that he be authorized to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate, including the employment of special counsel, to protect the interests of the University in this matter, to defend the action, and to provide representation for those members of the University staff who request the