Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997

 

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.

-------------------------

Musso v. University of Minnesota, 105 F.3d 409 (8th Cir. January 27, 1997)

Keywords: Title VII (sex discrimination, demotion, nonrenewal, retaliation, consent decree)

Introduction: In 1980 the University of Minnesota entered into a consent decree governing sex discrimination claims brought by female academic employees. Sandra Y. Musso filed suit under the decree alleging that she was demoted and then her contract was not renewed based on her sex. The district court later allowed her to add a claim of retaliatory discharge after the consent decree had expired. The district court found in favor of the University on the demotion and nonrenewal claims, but found against the University on the retaliation claim. Both sides appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the demotion and nonrenewal claims; and reverses the judgment in favor of Musso on the retaliation claim.

Facts: In 1986 Musso was hired as the first Director of Sports Facilities. Her job was to manage the athletic facilities. The various athletic directors resented this invasion of their turf. In 1989, they proposed that they be restored control over their former domain. This resulted in Musso's staff being reduced from twenty-five to three by November of 1989. On December 1, 1989 Musso filed a sex discrimination claim under the consent decree. Musso's contract was set to expire August 31, 1991. Musso received a performance review in 1990 concerning whether her contract should be renewed. The review committee (composed of two women and one man) recommended against renewal. When Musso was advised that her contract would not be renewed, she filed a second claim under the consent decree on June 7, 1990. At about this same time a routine audit occurred of the Sports Facilities Department. The auditors determined that Musso was working twenty-hour weeks and taking unauthorized vacation days. As a result, Musso was terminated on February 6, 1991. Although the consent decree had expired on January 1, 1991, the district court allowed her to amend her complaint to include a claim of retaliatory firing.

Law:

1. With respect to the demotion claim, there is no evidence of sex-based animus. This was a power play by the athletic directors to regain their turf.
2. With respect to the nonrenewal claim, the Eighth Circuit agrees with the district court that the review committee's recommendation, and not sex-based animus, prompted the University not to renew Musso's contract.
3. With respect to the retaliation claim, the Court holds that the district court should not have considered this claim under the consent decree.
4. Like any consent decree, this consent decree should be construed as a contract. It unambiguously states that it expires on January 1, 1991. Therefore, the district court had no authority to consider this late-filed claim.
5. The Court rejects Musso's relation back argument.
6. Click here to see actual case.