The University of Tennessee has reached a settlement with several former athletic department employees, who had alleged in 2012 that the university discriminated against them on the basis of their gender, creating what was tantamount to a “testosterone wall.”
Plaintiffs’ attorneys Keith D. Stewart and Stacey C. Sisco announced in a statement that Jenny Moshak, Heather Mason, and Collin Schlosser will receive a total of $750,000.
“The resolution of this matter stands as a testament to the importance of equality for women in sports and those working with women in sports,” the attorneys said. “This settlement sends a clear message to collegiate decision-makers nationwide that disparity in pay, opportunity, funding, participation or otherwise is unacceptable in this day and time.”
Specifically, the three plaintiffs alleged that the school discriminated against them “based on their sex and/or association with women’s athletics:
“(a) by paying them lower wages than those paid to similarly situated employees associated with men’s athletics;
“(b) by hiring and promoting male staff or staff associated with men’s athletics at disparate pay grades;
“(c) by changing job titles, duties and/or classifications without regard for personnel procedures;
“(d) by providing benefits and/or bonus structures to staff associated with men’s athletics above percentages offered to them and/or staff associated with women’s athletics;
“(e) by providing employment through negotiated contract(s) to staff associated with men’s athletics when contracts were not available to them and/or staff associated with women’s athletics; and
“(f) by providing disparate operational and organizational support in the form of personnel, budget, and facilities to staff associated with men’s sports.”
The plaintiffs further alleged that the university “disregarded personnel policies in making decisions regarding employment benefits” and “failed or refused to take appropriate action to remedy the discriminatory treatment of the plaintiffs.”
With regard to Moshak, the plaintiffs claimed that she suffered retaliation in a number of ways, one of which was her unwarranted demotion in April 2012 from Associate Athletics Director for Sports Medicine to Associate Director of Sports Medicine, “reducing her supervisory authority and limiting her to covering women’s basketball and advising volleyball only, whereas Moshak previously supervised the sports medicine/ athletic training for all women’s sports.”
They also claimed Mason suffered retaliation when she was demoted in April 2012 from Assistant Athletics Director for Strength and Conditioning to Associate Strength and Conditioning Coach covering women’s basketball and soccer only, whereas Mason previously supervised the strength and conditioning program for all women’s sports.
In both the case of Moshak and Moser, a male was promoted to a supervisory role above them.
In the case of Schlosser, the lone male, the plaintiffs claimed the school retaliated against him by firing him from the position of associate director in April 2012 as part of a “’reduction in force;’ (b) by categorizing him as performing the same job as his counterpart within the former men’s athletic department for the purposes of the reduction in force despite previously denying the positions were comparable in making salary and bonus calculations; (c) by terminating his employment rather than reassigning him to another staff position for which he was qualified; (d) by terminating his employment rather than another staff member with less experience or qualifications; (e) by failing to interview, or even consider, him for job positions for which he applied in contravention of personnel policy; and (f) by failing or refusing to take action to remedy the retaliation.”
The plaintiffs essentially argued that Tennessee’s rationale for the decisions — the merger of the men’s and women’s athletic departments — was a rouse, or “a pretext for discrimination on the basis of gender” and “a pretext for retaliation.
“The disparity within the Strength and Conditioning programs is illustrative of the systemic bias against women’s athletics at the University of Tennessee: (a) The Athletic Department is responsible for the strength and conditioning training of 237 male athletes and 213 female athletes. (b) The Athletics Department has approximately 12,000 square feet dedicated to strength and conditioning for male athletes while only 4,500 square feet available for female athletes. (c) Excluding salary costs, the operational budget for men’s strength and conditioning is approximately $300,000.00 annually while the operational budget for women’s strength and conditioning is approximately $85,000.00. (d) The ratio of staff to athletes for the men’s strength and conditioning program is one (1) staff for every six (6) athletes while the ratio for the women’s strength and conditioning program is one (1) staff for every fifteen (15) athletes. The inequitable salaries and discrepancies in facilities, services, and staff at the University of Tennessee constitute discriminatory practices in violation of University policy and federal and state law. Defendant relies on market factors to justify paying men more than women. ‘Market factors’ are a pretext to justify systemic discrimination against women and women’s athletics. Defendant’s justification for promotions during and after the athletic department merger relied extensively on a staff member’s experience working with a men’s sport. The effect of Defendant’s promotion scheme is to improperly deny employment opportunities to Plaintiffs individually and staff associated with women’s sports generally.”
Plaintiffs: University of Tennessee Created a ‘Testosterone Wall’
Further, the defendant “created a testosterone wall effectively prohibiting women from earning equal pay and further denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to advance their careers by working in men’s athletics at the University of Tennessee. Defendant denies equal employment opportunities to Plaintiffs based of their gender and association with women’s athletics. Defendant has allowed a pattern and practice of gender discrimination to develop which indicates a lack of institutional control. Defendant’s actions have negatively affected Plaintiffs’ total compensation, including raises and bonus pay.
“Defendant’s actions and inactions have negatively affected Plaintiffs’ careers and opportunities for career advancement. Defendant’s conduct has caused each Plaintiff to suffer significant emotional distress. Defendant’s failure to follow appropriate personnel policies and procedures has denied Plaintiffs equal protection under the law and resulted in violation of Plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due process rights.”
The trio initially filed a discrimination complaint in February of 2010 with UT’s Office of Equity and Diversity. After that complaint was rejected twice, the plaintiffs approached the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
