Disclaimer:
The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law.
Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the
"facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be
the true facts.
-------------------------
Female professor failed to make out unequal
pay claim.
Farrell v. Butler University, 421 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. September 1, 2005) -
This is a Title VII sex discrimination action alleging unequal pay pursuant
to disparate treatment and disparate impact. Dr. Grace Farrell was hired in
1987 as a tenured full professor of English and served as the head of the
English Department until 1989. When she resigned as head of the Department,
she continued to earn the same salary even though non-administrative faculty
at the University traditionally earned less. In 2000, based upon the
recommendation of a gender equity task force -- that had found that male
professors tended to have higher mean salaries than female professors -- the
University implemented a Professional Excellence Program ("PEP") award to
reward professors who had been tenured full professors for at least five
years and who had demonstrated sustained excellence in scholarship,
teaching, and service. Farrell applied in 2000 and 2001, but was not
selected for the award either year. Also, only male professors were chosen
both years. Farrell brought this lawsuit and the district court granted
summary judgment for the University. The Seventh Circuit affirms. The first
issue is whether the claim regarding the denial of the 2000 PEP award is
timely. The Court holds that it is because it would have been unreasonable
to expect Farrell to sue before the statute of limitations expired on the
alleged discriminatory conduct. It was only after she had been denied the
award for the second year that Farrell began to suspect gender
discrimination. With respect to her disparate treatment claim, the next
issue is whether the PEP award is a raise or a bonus because the denial of a
bonus is not an adverse employment action. While the award has
characteristics of both a raise and a bonus, the Court finds it to be a
raise because the award is presented on a regular, annual basis and it
results in a permanent increase in base salary. Therefore, the Court finds
that she made out a prima facie case. Next, the University proffered
the following reasons for her non-selection: (1) the selection committee
determined that her overall record in the areas of teaching, scholarship and
service work was exceeded by other professors in the applicant pool; and (2)
the selection committee found her record to be weak in the area of service
to the University. Farrell failed to show that these proffered reasons were
pretextual. The Court noted that it has previously recognized that scholars
are in the best position to make the highly subjective judgments related to
the review of scholarship and university service. Therefore, her disparate
treatment claim fails. With respect to her disparate impact claim, she
asserts that the eligibility requirements and the candidate evaluation
methods for the award have a disparate impact against women faculty members
at the University. But her purported evidence -- that the selection
committee failed to consider her alternative and supplemental submissions
regarding her teaching activities -- hardly amounts to a disparate impact on
women in general. Therefore, this claim fails as well. Click
here to see actual case.