Muslow v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ.
| Decision Date | 04 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11793 SECTION M (2) |
| Parties | KATHERINE MUSLOW AND MEREDITH CUNNINGHAM v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, THOMAS SKINNER, LARRY HOLLIER, AND JON HARMAN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court is a partial motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second supplemental and amended complaint filed by defendants Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (the "LSU Board"), Thomas Skinner, Larry Hollier, and Jon Harman (collectively, "Defendants").1 Plaintiffs Katherine Muslow and Meredith Cunningham (collectively, "Plaintiffs") oppose the motion.2 Defendants reply in support of their motion.3 Having considered the parties' memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, this Court issues this Order & Reasons.
This case arises out of an employment dispute. Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the the LSU Board as attorneys. The LSU Board oversees and manages LSU institutions across Louisiana, including its campuses in Baton Rouge ("LSU (Baton Rouge)") and the LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans ("LSU (New Orleans)").4 Until January 2020, defendant Thomas Skinner was Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel at LSU (Baton Rouge).5 Defendant Winston DeCuir is Skinner's successor.6 Jones is Deputy General Counsel at LSU (Baton Rouge).7 Defendant Larry Hollier is Chancellor, and defendant Jon Harman Vice Chancellor, Administration and Finance at LSU (New Orleans).8 Until mid-2019, Muslow was "General Counsel" to LSU (New Orleans) and reported directly to Hollier.9 Before her employment at LSU (New Orleans), she served as its outside counsel. Likewise, until summer 2019, Cunningham was employed as a staff attorney at LSU (New Orleans) and reported to Muslow.10
According to Plaintiffs, in 2017, LSU (New Orleans) conducted a market study to assess the equity of its salary structure (the "Study").11 Due to her part-time status, Cunningham was deemed ineligible for a salary assessment under the Study,12 although the Study - unbeknownst to her at the time - did rank her position within a paygrade and established a salary range for it, but Muslow, who was a full-time employee, did have her salary assessed.13 Plaintiffs allege that the Study showed that Muslow's salary was well below the "minimum" for the paygrade assigned to her position, despite having worked for LSU (New Orleans) for decades.14 Sometime after this information was provided, Muslow learned that Hollier, with Harman's concurrence, intended to increase her salary as a result of the Study, but only to a level that still fell below the minimum for the relevant paygrade.15 Plaintiffs allege that Hollier and Harman intended to treat similarly the only other female direct-report to Hollier.16 Muslow allegedly then confronted Hollier in a face-to-face meeting during which Muslow "explicitly advised Hollier that gender pay disparities existed at LSU (New Orleans)," that despite knowledge of these disparities, Hollier was not acting to ameliorate them, and that "those persistent disparities posed a risk to the institution."17 Hollier subsequently agreed to raise to the minimum level for their respective paygrades the salaries for Muslow and the two other Chancellor's Office women employees (including the other female direct-report to Hollier) for whom Muslow also advocated.18
Plaintiffs allege that in October 2018, Muslow - the employee responsible for responding to public-records requests - was assigned such a request for the Study (which Plaintiffs had not yet viewed in whole); and Muslow provided the requester electronic copies of the Study.19 Plaintiffs allege that the complete version of the Study reveals that they and other women working in the Chancellor's Office were paid "dramatically less than their male counterparts," and that these wage disparities were apparent on the face of the Study, enumerating various examples.20 According to Plaintiffs, Hollier manipulated the paygrade of one of Muslow's counterparts to obscure even more dramatic disparities.21 Furthermore, they say, the disparities apparent from the face of the Study are vastly understated due to exclusion of categories of "extra" compensation paid only to men working in the Chancellor's Office.22 Plaintiffs allege that the LSU Board, Hollier, and Harman took no action to correct these disparities, but rather perpetuated them by increasing the salaries of Plaintiffs' male counterparts in October 2018 based on purely subjective and arbitrary factors, while not raising - or even considering raising - Plaintiffs' pay.23 Plaintiffs also say that men at LSU (New Orleans) are treated preferentially in that they are given "substantial latitude about performing their job responsibilities in ways that women are not," of which Plaintiffs complained.24 They allege that Hollier was particularly dismissive of complaints of gender discrimination, disparate pay, and retaliation brought by women employees.25 Plaintiffs allege that they complained about gender pay disparities to human-resources officials, and Muslow spoke with other women employees at LSU (New Orleans) regarding the full Study's revelations, but many women expressed fear that the apparent disparities would not be remedied and that complaints would be met with retaliation.26
Plaintiffs say that in December 2018 they were notified that all existing legal positions at LSU, including theirs, would be consolidated under a single Office of General Counsel (the "OGC") at LSU (Baton Rouge), despite that until that point they had rarely worked or communicated with the attorneys at LSU (Baton Rouge), including Skinner, who was hired in 2015 to fill the recently-created position of "General Counsel."27 Around this time (December 2018), a new position entitled "Deputy General Counsel" was created for Jones, who had originally been hired in 2017 for the position of "Managing Attorney" at LSU (Baton Rouge).28 For this new position, Jones's salary would be raised, "purportedly as compensation for 'supervising' Muslow and Cunningham, as well as attorneys at the other LSU campuses."29 Plaintiffs allege that despite their own qualifications for this position, they were not given the opportunity to apply for it, nor were other members of the LSU community or the general public. In January 2019, Plaintiffs met with Skinner and Jones, who reiterated their prior representations to Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs' positions at LSU (New Orleans) would remain unchanged other than their consolidation under the OGC, whereby Plaintiffs would be employed by LSU (Baton Rouge) and "leased" to LSU (New Orleans).30 Under the new organizational structure presented to them, Muslow's position would be rendered subordinate to Jones, "even though [her] legal experience exceeded [his] by almost twenty years," and Cunningham's position would be rendered subordinate to all OGC lawyers and staff employed by LSU (Baton Rouge).31 Plaintiffs allege that the "consolidation" was "in name only," noting that it became apparent that neither Jones nor Skinner had specific plans to consolidate OGC's operations with LSU (New Orleans) and that no information or support was given to Plaintiffs "that would have accompanied a genuine consolidation."32
In January 2019, Plaintiffs received emails from the OGC's business manager, welcoming them and providing them with steps to set them up within the LSU (Baton Rouge) human-resources system, for which Plaintiffs provided the requested information.33 Plaintiffs allege that before they completed this process, they received employment contracts executed by Skinner for their respective positions with the same salaries they had been paid to that date.34
On February 15, 2019, Plaintiffs wrote to Skinner asking that, before signing the contracts, "their salaries be reviewed and raises given to bring their compensation in line with those of their male counterparts at LSU (New Orleans)," and stating that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their gender through disparate pay practices at the institution.35 They believe that this was the first time concerns regarding gender pay disparities arising from the Study were presented to a person outside the LSU (New Orleans) chain of command.36 Plaintiffs thought that Skinner, who was an attorney and directly responsible for Title IX compliance at all LSU campuses, would take their complaints seriously, but instead, rather than responding or ever acknowledging receipt of the email, Plaintiffs say, Skinner went straight to Hollier and asked him what he wanted to do; and the next business day, Skinner rescinded Plaintiffs' contracts "'pending further review' on the pretext that Plaintiffs had not signed them," even though "neither Plaintiff had been given a deadline within which to execute the contracts."37 Plaintiffs allege that following the rescission, their work environment at LSU (New Orleans) changed: work was diverted away from them and employees were discouraged from communicating with them.38 Plaintiffs say they met with Hollier, who "feigned confusion about [their] positions" and told them that their "jobs were 'moving to Baton Rouge' because Plaintiffs 'had not responded' to [the] OGC's offers of employment," to which Plaintiffs replied that they had indeed "responded to the 'offers'" and had completed the steps required by LSU (Baton Rouge) human resources to move to the OGC.39 After Plaintiffs emailed Hollier and Skinner asking for clarification about their positions, these two defendants notified Plaintiffs on March 1, 2019, in separate emails, that not only had their "so-called Employment Contracts been rescinded" but also that their positions at LSU (New Orleans) would be "retired" effective June 30, 2019, and equivalent positions would be advertised to the public, even though, to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial