下面转登一美高校著名教授上诉她工作的学校.

The following case was copied from the website: http://www.lcwlegal.com/80638.

饭后茶话： a more detailed case documentfrom court was attached here.

Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment To UniversityWhere Faculty Member Does Not Provide Enough Evidence To Support Timely ClaimsBut Does Not Dismiss Claim Where University Provides Insufficient Evidence ToRebut Unequal Pay Claim

EmailPage

[url=]inShare[/url]

July 10, 2011

The Leonard N. Stern School ofBusiness (Stern) at New York University (NYU) hired April Klein as a visitingassistant professor in 1987, and eventually gave her tenure as an associateprofessor in 1993.  In 1998, Klein and other female members of the Sternfaculty signed a memo regarding gender discrimination and sent it to Stern'sdean and vice dean of faculty.  As a result, Stern formed a committee thatpublished a report in 2001 finding female faculty were less satisfied, feltless respected and valued, and were mostly underpaid relative to male faculty. The report recommended equity in tenure and promotions.

Klein's 2004-2005 merit reviewmentioned two notable publications by Klein but also that her teaching ratingswere among the lowest in the school and that she had limited serviceactivity.  She received a three percent raise and summer research supportequivalent to two-ninths her base salary.  Her 2005-2006 review notedstrong research, solid service activity, and teaching scores that were improvedbut still within the bottom ten percent of Stern faculty.  She received a5.36 percent raise and summer research support.  The dean's office alsoprovides financial support for research by awarding faculty fellowships everythree years, paying out at two-ninths of base salary for three years. Klein was nominated for a faculty fellowship in 2001, 2004, and 2007.  Thedean did not select Klein any of those years, though other female faculty wereselected.

Klein applied for promotion to fullprofessor in 2001, along with two men from her department.  One male waspromoted, but not the other or Klein.  In 2005, Klein met with Stern'svice dean of faculty regarding an offer from another university for fullprofessor at over $200,000 a year.  He advised her to take the offer andthat NYU would never pay her market value, which Klein perceived as a requestfor her resignation.  The next year, Klein filed two complaints with theEEOC, shortly followed by a lawsuit in 2007.  That same academic year,Klein told Frederick Choi, the department chair, she wanted to be consideredfor promotion, but he advised her to wait a year because two others werealready applying.  She applied in 2008 and was promoted to professor in2009.

In the 2005-2006 academic year,Klein was assigned to teach a course that had last-minute changes, impactingthe timing of the class and composition of students.  The following yearshe was assigned an undergraduate course and two MBA courses, giving her threeclasses to prepare and impacting her ability to travel and present papers atother universities.  In 2003, at the beginning of a two-phase office move,Klein refused her new office assignment and the assigner, the deputy chair ofthe department, assigned Klein his office and took hers instead.  When thesecond phase was completed, Klein requested reassignment to a newly renovatedoffice but was refused, though others who were unhappy with but had not refusedtheir 2003 assignments were reassigned.  In 1995, 1998, and every yearthereafter, Klein requested a three-bedroom apartment from university housinginstead of her two-bedroom apartment to accommodate an additional child, or tocombine her apartment with the studio next door.  She was always informedthat her request was under consideration, but that housing was tight and shecould not combine the two units.  In 2009, Klein rejected an offeredthree-bedroom apartment for being inferior in size and amenities, and rejectedan offer to also rent but not combine the adjacent studio.

Klein sued NYU for genderdiscrimination in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964and the Equal Pay Act (EPA).  She claimed that NYU discriminated againsther because of her gender by (1) denying her 2001 application for promotion tofull professor, (2) not awarding her faculty fellowships or research professorships,(3) assigning her unreasonable and unfavorable teaching schedules, (4) denyingher requests for different offices, (5) denying her requests for athree-bedroom apartment, (6) giving her unfavorable performance evaluations in2004 and 2005, (7) giving her an unfavorable senior faculty peer reviewcommittee report, (8) denying her request to teach a Ph.D. level course, (9)asking her to resign, (10) not promoting her to full professor until her secondapplication in 2009, and (11) paying her less than similarly situated malefaculty members.  NYU filed a motion for summary judgment, which is arequest that the court rule in one party's favor based on certain facts withoutproceeding to a trial.

The Court began with the disparatetreatment claim by explaining the first step for Klein's claim to survive themotion was to establish the elements of discrimination by showing that (1) shewas a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position held,(3) she was subject to an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverseemployment action occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference ofdiscrimination.

The Court held that Klein failed toestablish the elements of discrimination because many of her alleged adverseemployment actions were time-barred as they occurred more than 300 days beforeher first EEOC complaint was filed in 2006.  Of the employment actionsthat fell within the limitations period, the Court held that they did notsatisfy the third element because they were not adverse, and even if they were,there was no evidence they occurred in circumstances giving rise to aninference of discrimination.  

The Court found that Choi'ssuggestion she not apply for promotion in 2007 was not based on genderprejudice but because he supported her and believed her chances for promotionwere better if she did not apply at the same time as two other associateprofessors.  And even if the Court accepted for the sake of argument thatdenial of her request for a three-bedroom apartment could be an adverseemployment action, there was no evidence that this was donediscriminatorily.  The Court similarly disposed of the claims regardingperformance evaluations, teaching schedule, and office assignment. Regarding the failure to receive faculty fellowships, the Court found shereceived the same economic benefit of two-ninths of her base salary every year,the only difference was the title and there was no evidence that the titledifference constituted an adverse employment action.

The Court then addressed theretaliation claim.  In order to prevail on this claim, Klein had to showthat (1) she participated in a protected activity, (2) the employer was awareof her participation, (3) she suffered a materially adverse action that"well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting acharge of discrimination," and (4) a causal connection between theprotected activity and the materially adverse action.

The Court held that Klein failed tomake out a prima facie case for retaliation, as well.  Again, mostof the adverse actions were time-barred.  Of the remaining actions, theCourt found none of them to be materially adverse actions, and even takentogether, there was no evidence that any of the actions were causally connectedto her signing the 1998 memorandum.  The Court noted that many other womenthat had signed the memorandum were promoted and had successful careers atStern.

Finally, the Court addressed theclaim that she was underpaid relative to three male accounting professors. To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the EPA, aplaintiff must show that the (1) employer paid lower wages to employees of theopposite sex, (2) the relevant employees performed "equal work on jobs theperformance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility,"and (3) the jobs were performed in similar working conditions.

The Court held that Klein made outthe prima facie case for discrimination under the EPA because Klein waspaid less than each of the three professors, and the evidence would permit areasonable jury to conclude they all performed the same job requiringsubstantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility in similar workingconditions as professors in the same department.  NYU asserted that the paydifferential could be explained based on merit rather than gender, supported bya declaration from a professor regarding NYU's compensation policy and theprofessional records of Klein and the other professors.  The Court held,however, that this declaration alone was insufficient to rule out Klein's claimbecause he was not involved in deciding merit increases until 2008, and noother evidence about how merit increases are given was presented.  Thus,the Court granted the motion to dismiss Klein's claims of disparate treatmentand retaliation under Title VII, but did not dismiss her discrimination claimunder the EPA.

Note:

Here, NYU may have also succeeded ongetting the EPA claim dismissed if either their merit-based raises utilizedpurely objective or quantitative evidence or there had been more evidence abouthow merit increases were determined based on NYU's stated policy.  Fordetermining merit increases, clear policies dominated by objective factors andexamples or guidelines for subjective factors are important to easily explainsalary disparity.  And perhaps more importantly, documenting reasons foremployment decisions should help avoid liability; even if the factors had beenentirely subjective in this case, documented reasons explaining application of thefactors may have been enough evidence to rebut Klein's prima facie case.  

Klein v. New York University (S.D.N.Y. 2011) --- F.Supp.2d. --- [2011 WL 2020880].