DRI member Vince Toreno, partner and chair of the Civil Litigation Practice Group at Ken David & Associates, LLC in Atlanta, Georgia, recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of a Georgia university president and its board of regents, which were sued by a former athletic director alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
The plaintiff, a longstanding university employee who had worked in various administrative positions ultimately became the university’s first permanent female athletic director. After approximately one and a half years in that role she was terminated by the president, who decided the university needed an athletic director with more experience, leadership ability, and a track record of significant fund raising. At the time, the University was on the cusp of being admitted to a Division I athletic conference and it was important that the athletic department and its director be up to the task.
The plaintiff was terminated but allowed to accept a newly created position in another department at a lower salary. A male athletic director was hired as plaintiff’s replacement at a higher rate of pay. The plaintiff filed a claim of gender discrimination with the EEOC and claimed, thereafter, that her new position had been changed to a temporary position in retaliation for filing her claim. She then sued the university president and board of regents alleging gender discrimination and retaliation as well as violation of the Equal Pay Act.
After the close of discovery, the defense moved for summary judgment, which was granted by United States District Court Judge Richard Story. The defendants argued that plaintiff lacked the experience, education, and skills to be an effective leader of the athletic department and, further, had failed to raise significant funding for the department, a core responsibility of the position. Judge Story found that no reasonable jury would believe the president’s non-discriminatory reasons for terminating the plaintiff were pretextual. Judge Story agreed the plaintiff failed to prove gender discrimination against women was the university’s standard operating procedure because she failed to provide any statistical evidence in support and the few antidotes offered were inadequate to permit a reasonable jury to find in her favor. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed as well because she failed to establish the decision maker who allegedly changed her new position from permanent to temporary. Finally, in response to defendants’ motion, the plaintiff abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act.
Leave A Comment