Filed Date: Sept. 30, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
Report an error/make a suggestion Request an updateOn September 30, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado The EEOC sued the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, on behalf of seven full-time law professors, under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It alleged that the University discriminated against the complainants by paying them substantially less than male full-tim…
On September 30, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado The EEOC sued the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, on behalf of seven full-time law professors, under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It alleged that the University discriminated against the complainants by paying them substantially less than male full-time law professors even though their work was substantially equal. The complaint sought monetary relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The case was assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel. On January 3, the EEOC filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contained no significant differences but merely rephrased some of the claims for relief.
Over the course of the litigation, seven female full-time law professors intervened. Four of those intervenors filed their own complaints.
The following year, after several months of negotiations, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the court enter a consent decree they believe is fair, reasonable, equitable and not the product of collusion. On May 18, 2018, Judge Daniel granted the motion and approved the consent decree. The consent decree term was 6 years; it included monetary relief and injunctive relief (required changes to policy and procedure).
Under the consent decree, the complainants, several intervenors, and their attorneys received $2,660,000 after each plaintiff-intervenor signed a release waiving their right to bring suit in a future claim on the matter. Additionally, the University was required to increase salaries for the female law professors to better equalize pay among male and female law professors at the University.
The consent decree enjoined the University from engaging in sex discrimination affecting compensation and permanently enjoins retaliation against any individual related to the case. The University was required to adopt and maintain a policy statement encouraging employees to report any conduct believed to be discriminatory. The University was also required to provide salary and compensation disclosures, as well as conduct a study to consider whether any disparities in compensation are attributable to gender or to gender combined with other protected characteristics like race.
Further, the University was required to provide equal employment opportunity training and training in the new policy and procedures for all law school employees. All records concerning implementation of the consent decree were to be maintained by the University. The parties were to appoint an independent consultant to evaluate the University’s compliance with the consent decree.
The decree was set to last for 6 years, with the Court retaining jurisdiction over compliance disputes. Implementation is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jake Parker (5/24/2018)