Rick Dean
Registered
5
http://amren.com/news/news04/07/07/profdiscrim.html
Piper Fogg, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jul. 6
Northern Arizona University violated the civil rights of 40 white male faculty members by giving raises to female and minority professors and not to them, a federal judge in Phoenix ruled last week.
The male faculty members had sued the university and the Arizona Board of Regents in 1995, claiming violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race or sex. They contended that they had been treated unfairly because members of
inority groups at the university had received one-time pay increases that averaged $3,000, and women had received increases averaging $2,400, while the white men had received no raises.
In
r
January 2003, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of A
ppeals for the Ninth Circuit had found that a 1993 pay-equity plan developed by the university's former president, Eugene Hughes, had not unnecessarily hampered the rights of professors who did not receive raises. But the judges concluded that a jury should decide whether the raises were higher than necessary to make up for past inequities.
The plaintiffs, on advice from their lawyer, Jess A. Lorona, chose to have a fact-finder review and rule on the matter instead of a jury.
The fact-finder, Senior Judge Robert C. Broomfield of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, ruled that in awarding the raises, Northern Arizona had failed to attain a balance and went beyond attaining a balance. He noted that university data showed that when exp
erience, rank, discipline, and tenure status were taken into account, male professors at the time made only $750 more per year than females, on average, and white professors only $87 more th
an
members of minority groups. Judge Broomfield a
lso noted that in determining raises, Mr. Hughes had failed to consider doctoral status and performance.
Edward W. Hood, one of the professors who sued, said he felt vindicated by the ruling. "t comes at a very interesting time, he added. NAU has very serious budget issues.
Mr. Hood said he is still not sure whether the university made a mistake in giving the raises or whether officials knew that they were being unfair but nonetheless were trying to retain women and minorities. "f the second is true, they deserve a harsh remedy, he said.
A. Dean Pickett, general counsel for the university, said that in 1994, after Mr. Hughes left the university, a new set of raises, totaling about $700,000, was given to white male professors and f
emale professors. Those raises, he said, made up for any discrepancies. He also noted that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in 1995 that those raises constituted ful
l reli
ef for the alleged discrimi
natory practice.
The two sides will return to court on July 26 to set a date for a trial that will determine potential damages.
http://amren.com/news/news04/07/07/profdiscrim.html
Piper Fogg, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jul. 6
Northern Arizona University violated the civil rights of 40 white male faculty members by giving raises to female and minority professors and not to them, a federal judge in Phoenix ruled last week.
The male faculty members had sued the university and the Arizona Board of Regents in 1995, claiming violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race or sex. They contended that they had been treated unfairly because members of
inority groups at the university had received one-time pay increases that averaged $3,000, and women had received increases averaging $2,400, while the white men had received no raises.
In
r
January 2003, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of A
ppeals for the Ninth Circuit had found that a 1993 pay-equity plan developed by the university's former president, Eugene Hughes, had not unnecessarily hampered the rights of professors who did not receive raises. But the judges concluded that a jury should decide whether the raises were higher than necessary to make up for past inequities.
The plaintiffs, on advice from their lawyer, Jess A. Lorona, chose to have a fact-finder review and rule on the matter instead of a jury.
The fact-finder, Senior Judge Robert C. Broomfield of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, ruled that in awarding the raises, Northern Arizona had failed to attain a balance and went beyond attaining a balance. He noted that university data showed that when exp
erience, rank, discipline, and tenure status were taken into account, male professors at the time made only $750 more per year than females, on average, and white professors only $87 more th
an
members of minority groups. Judge Broomfield a
lso noted that in determining raises, Mr. Hughes had failed to consider doctoral status and performance.
Edward W. Hood, one of the professors who sued, said he felt vindicated by the ruling. "t comes at a very interesting time, he added. NAU has very serious budget issues.
Mr. Hood said he is still not sure whether the university made a mistake in giving the raises or whether officials knew that they were being unfair but nonetheless were trying to retain women and minorities. "f the second is true, they deserve a harsh remedy, he said.
A. Dean Pickett, general counsel for the university, said that in 1994, after Mr. Hughes left the university, a new set of raises, totaling about $700,000, was given to white male professors and f
emale professors. Those raises, he said, made up for any discrepancies. He also noted that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in 1995 that those raises constituted ful
l reli
ef for the alleged discrimi
natory practice.
The two sides will return to court on July 26 to set a date for a trial that will determine potential damages.