Storrs v. University of Cincinnati, United States Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Case No.1:15-CV-136
In a pre-trial decision involving a wage discrimination claim commenced under the federal Equal Pay Act by former University of Cincinnati Assistant Professor Colleen McTague Storrs, United States District Court Judge Timothy S. Black made a ruling on the potential admissibility of a clause from the University of Cincinnati-AAUP contract establishing a procedure for faculty to see to correct wage disparities.
Section 15.1 of the contract states:
"In the event that the Administration wishes to make salary or benefit adjustments which are more favorable than those called for in this Agreement to any individual member of the Bargaining Unit for purposes of matching a bona fide offer from a rival institution, of correcting inequities not otherwise dealt with in this Agreement, of correcting inequities proscribed by Article 4.1, including but not limited to those on the basis of gender or race, or of rewarding outstanding professional contributions, it is free to do so. Care will be taken to ensure that such professional contributions are clearly above and beyond those typically recognized through a merit increase program. When such individual adjustments are made, the Administration shall inform the AAUP of the adjustments thirty (30) days before they are implemented, and shall state the reasons with the specific documentation leading to the adjustment. In any one fiscal year the total dollar value of such awards shall not exceed one-half percent (.5%) of the Bargaining Unit member salary base, except that documented bona fide offers shall be an exception should the one-half percent (.5%) cap be reached. Adjustments made under this Article shall come from the reallocation of funds and shall not decrease the amounts available to other members of the Bargaining Unit as provided for by the provisions of this Agreement."
In his decision, Judge Black ruled that the contract grievance procedure is not clearly inadmissible at the pre-trial stage because the university's knowledge may be relevant to the willfulness of the pay discrepancy. In reaching his ruling, the judge emphasized that the university does not intend to argue that Professor Storrs was obligated to exhaust her contractual remedies before bringing her Equal Pay Act claim. The judge further stated that proper jury instructions would avoid any alleged prejudice resulting from the admission of the contract clause.