Etheridge v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of W. Ala.
| Decision Date | 24 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 7:18-CV-00905-RDP |
| Parties | BARBARA ETHERIDGE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST ALABAMA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
This case is before the court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 30). The Motion has been fully briefed (Docs. # 31, 36, 46) and is under submission. After careful review, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 30) is due to be granted.1
On January 3, 1992, Plaintiff Barbara Etheridge began her employment at Defendant University of West Alabama ("Defendant" or "the University"), located in Livingston, Alabama, as a Perkins Loan Officer. (Doc. # 32-1 at 13, 16). Her hourly wage was $5.75. (Doc. # 32-1 at 16).
At all relevant times, the University determined employee wages by weighing specific factors, including: (1) qualifications; (2) quality of work; (3) longevity; (4) knowledge, skill, and ability; (5) experience; and (6) budgetary constraints. (Doc. # 32-2 at 33; Doc. # 32-5 at 33). The University based pay-raise decisions on "equity and longevity calculations," which are evaluated each fiscal year. (Doc. # 32-1 at 68).
Longevity calculations are based on the number of years an employee is employed with the University. Equity is based on the market value of the position and the employee's current position. The amount of funds that go into this calculation is based off of the amount that faculty members have gotten through promotion and tenure or increased credentials. . . . Whatever dollar amount that is, the staff has allocated a percentage, and then that percentage is then divided out among the staff positions.
(Doc. # 32-1 at 68-69). Even taking all of this into account, the number and amount of pay increases that could be awarded at any given time were constrained by budgetary limitations. (Doc. # 32-1 at 70).
In September 1993, Plaintiff was promoted to a Student Accounts Clerk. She held that position until January 1994 and maintained the same hourly wage of $5.75. (Doc. # 32-1 at 16). In January 1994, Plaintiff was promoted to Student Account Supervisor. (Doc. # 32-1 at 17). Her hourly wage was increased to $8.15. (Doc. # 32-1 at 17). She remained in this position until September 2003, at which time she was promoted to Accounting Supervisor. (Doc. # 32-1 at 17). Plaintiff's hourly wage was initially increased to $14.17. (Doc. # 32-1 at 18). While employed in the Accounting Supervisor position, her hourly wage increased several times: to $26.36/hour in September 2013; and to $26.54/hour in September 2014. (Doc. # 32-1 at 18; Doc. # 40-5; Doc. # 40-21 at 1).
In the position of Accounting Supervisor, Plaintiff's supervisor was George Snow, who (at that time) was the Comptroller. (Doc. # 32-1 at 27). In 2014, Snow fell ill and could notperform his duties as Comptroller; he was often too sick to work and was frequently out of the office. (Doc. # 32-1 at 28-29, 117). Because of this, Plaintiff performed many of Snow's duties (in addition to her own) to maintain proper operations. (Doc. # 32-1 at 28-29). At this time, and while undertaking these additional duties, Plaintiff's hourly wage equaled an annual salary of $59,144.00. (Doc. # 32-5 at 37).
In July 2014, Snow retired after serving as the Comptroller for 27 years.3 (Doc. # 32-1 at 27-28). At the time of his retirement, Snow's annual salary was $99,822.00. (Doc. # 32-6 at 1-2, ¶ 3). Before Snow retired, however, Raiford Noland, the then-Vice President of Financial Affairs, hired Karen VanLuvender to "assist" Plaintiff in completing some of the duties and responsibilities of Comptroller, such as preparing financial statements. (Doc. # 32-1 at 28, 38; Doc. # 47-1 at 2, ¶ 4). VanLuvender still works part-time for Defendant and assists Plaintiff with certain duties. (Doc. # 32-1 at 27-28).
On February 8, 2015, Noland promoted Plaintiff to the position of Comptroller.4 (Doc. # 32-1 at 18, 26; Doc. # 32-5 at 37; Doc. # 40-4). Plaintiff's hourly wage increased to $29.42—a 10.87% increase.5 (Doc. # 32-1 at 19; Doc. # 40-6; Doc. # 47-1 at 1-2, ¶ 3). As Comptroller, Plaintiff's duties included, among other things, student accounts, accounts payable and receivable, tax preparation, collections, budget control, financial reporting, and softwaredevelopment (for budgeting purposes in each department).6 (Doc. # 32-1 at 36-27, 45; Doc. # 40-2). In the Spring of 2017, Plaintiff also helped with training administration staff on the new budget system. (Doc. # 32-3 at 26).
Effective June 1, 2017, Plaintiff switched from being an hourly employee to a salaried employee. (Doc. # 32-1 at 19; Doc. # 40-8). With this change, Plaintiff's annual salary was raised to $75,000—a 15.75% increase.7 (Doc. # 32-1 at 19; Doc. # 40-8; Doc. # 47-1 at 1-2, ¶ 3).
As Comptroller, Plaintiff's supervisor is Lawson C. Edmonds, the Vice President of Financial Affairs for the University. (Doc. # 32-2 at 8). Edmonds served in that position in an interim capacity from January 2017 until January 2018, when he became full time. (Doc. # 32-2 at 9). Edmonds replaced Nolan. (Doc. # 32-3 at 16-17). As of September 13, 2019, Edmonds's annual salary was $135,000, which is approximately $15,000 less than Nolan's salary was at the time of his death, and Nolan had been the University's Vice President of Financial Affairs for more than 30 years. (Doc. # 32-6 at ¶¶ 4-5; Doc. # 40-9).
In the Spring of 2017,8 Plaintiff met with Edmonds and requested an increase to her salary, noting the disparity between her salary and that of her predecessor, Snow. (Doc. # 32-1 at81-84, 86). She also provided Edmonds with a list of comparable positions and salaries at other Alabama state institutions, including the University of North Alabama, Jacksonville State University, the University of Montevallo, Alabama A&M, Troy University, and the University of South Alabama.9 (Doc. #32-1 at 81, 101-07; Doc. # 40-22 at 5). In response to her request, Edmonds told her that he had already spoken to Kenneth Tucker -- the President of the University -- "about her salary and [her] increased workload," and that he "planned to discuss it again during the budget proceedings." (Doc. # 32-1 at 86). Edmonds also told her he did not believe he could get her salary to what Snow's was, but that he "was hoping to get [her] $10,000 more." (Doc. # 32-1 at 86).
On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff met with Edmonds again. He told her that, after speaking with Tucker, they realized they could not give her a pay increase until the next budget year, but that she would receive a raise because the University values "her contributions . . . and [they] wanted to honor her request if [they] could reasonably and fairly do so." (Doc. # 32-1 at 89; Doc. # 32-3 at 32; Doc. # 32-5 at 31). Importantly, around this same time, the University was "going through a severe budgetary crisis," and "no other employee was being [given] [a] raise[]."10 (Doc. # 32-5 at 22). Tucker testified that (Doc. # 32-5 at 23; Doc. # 40-23 at 5, ¶ 12). The financial records thatPlaintiff produced show that in 2013 the University's Fiscal Year End Cash Flow (in thousands of dollars) was $26,057,000 and the Operating Cash Flow was $(19,144,000) (Doc. # 40-16 at 26); in 2014, the Fiscal Year End Cash Flow was $21,229,000 and the Operating Cash Flow was $(21,147,000) (Doc. # 40-17 at 26); in 2015, the Fiscal Year End Cash Flow was $19,551,000 and the Operating Cash Flow was $(14,856,000) (Doc. # 40-18 at 24); in 2016, the Fiscal Year End Cash Flow was $15,642,000 and the Operating Cash Flow was $(18,114,000) (Doc. # 40-19 at 24); and in 2017, the Fiscal Year End Cash Flow was $14,757,000 and the Operating Cash Flow was $(19,436,000) (Doc. # 40-20 at 11).11
Nevertheless, Edmonds told Plaintiff that, while her pay increase would not amount to Snow's salary, "it would be [] noticeable." (Doc. # 32-1 at 89). Plaintiff testified that she does not recall if at any point during these two discussions she told Edmonds that she believed the pay disparity was because she is a woman. (Doc. # 32-1 at 84). To be sure, when asked if she had any recollection that she told Edmonds on either occasion that she thought the pay disparity between her and Snow was due to her gender, she testified that she did not recall, followed by her statement, "No . . . I did not use those exact words, no, I did not." (Doc. # 32-1 at 93). Moreover, with respect to the pay disparity, Tucker testified that Plaintiff was not compensated at the same rate as Snow due to "the large disparity in experience in that role performing those duties and responsibilities, and concomitant with that would be knowledge, skills, and ability borne oflength of service performing those duties and responsibilities in that role, as well as budgetary constraints." (Doc. # 32-5 at 46).
On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff again met with Edmonds to discuss student deregistration. Plaintiff testified that she also requested a pay increase during this meeting. (Doc. # 32-1 at 109-10). But again, there is no indication that on this occasion she told Edmonds she believed the pay disparity was because of her gender. (Doc. # 32-1 at 97-99). Edmonds is the only person Plaintiff ever spoke to about her salary (Doc. # 32-1 at 100-01, 118), and Plaintiff testified that no aspect of her position changed (and no one began treating her any differently) after her discussions with Edmonds. (Doc. # 32-1 at 111). Rather, consistent with Edmonds assurances, effective October 1, 2018, Plaintiff received an $8,000 pay increase (or 10.67%), raising her annual salary to $83,000. (Doc. # 32-1 at 94; Doc. # 32-3 at 32-33; Doc. # 40-10; Doc. # 47-1 at 1-2, ¶ 3).
On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with...
To continue reading
Request your trial