A Lane County Circuit Court judge has declared a mistrial in the case of a former University electrician who is suing the University on claims she was retaliated against after she complained to her bosses about gender discrimination.
Judge Lauren S. Holland declared the mistrial on Nov. 16 after determining she had a conflict of interest because the University, on the day the trial began, offered Holland a teaching job at the Law School. The trial was rescheduled for May.
Former University employee Cindy Boynton-Burns, who is seeking $300,000 in noneconomic damages, first filed a lawsuit against the University in August 2000, claiming the University retaliated against her after she complained about a “sexually hostile work environment,” her attorney David Force said.
The case went to trial in April 2002, but Holland dismissed the retaliation claims, saying Boynton-Burns did not provide enough evidence of a connection between her complaints and the lack of work that led to her dismissal, according to the appeals court judge’s opinion.
After the initial trial, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, sending the case back to the trial court.
Boynton-Burns was retaliated against when the University refused to interview her for an electrician position she applied for in 1999, Force said.
Force said the University claimed Boynton-Burns did not have relevant work experience; however, Boynton-Burns was the only applicant who had worked at the University before and was the most qualified for the job.
But in 2001, the University hired two journeyman electricians who had not worked for the University before, he said.
Assistant Attorney General David Kramer, who is representing the University in the case, could not be reached for comment Monday. Between February 1995 and May 1999, the time Boynton-Burns worked for the University, she was the only female electrician and the only apprentice employed at the University’s Physical Plant, Force said.
According to the appeals court judge’s opinion, Boynton-Burns told the court the following occurred:
Boynton-Burns began having problems with her supervisor shortly after beginning work at the University. Her supervisor consistently refused to sign progress reports that were critical to Boynton-Burns’ completion of the program.
In addition, he yelled and berated her on numerous occasions.
He also wouldn’t accommodate her work schedule for childcare needs; however, he granted similar accommodations to a male employee.
Boynton-Burns complained about her supervisor several times while working for the University. She complained to her supervisor’s boss, who told her that he couldn’t help and that she would lose her job if she continued to complain about her immediate supervisor.
In 1999, Boynton-Burns met with the manager of the department and asked him to investigate her supervisor’s repeated discrimination. He refused and insisted that Boynton-Burns did not have “the right to fight discrimination” because she was considered a temporary employee.
Force said in an interview that Boynton-Burns also met with the University Affirmative Action office, but after complaining to the office, “the situation got a whole lot worse.”
Boynton-Burns was verbally harassed, denied work and threatened with discharge, he said.
In February 1999, Boynton-Burns completed her apprenticeship and became a journeyman electrician.
Three months later, the University laid off Boynton-Burns “due to lack of work due to the end of her internship,” the court opinion stated.

Contact the crime, health and safety reporter at [email protected]