Mildred DeWitt
NYS Legal Advocacy Fund Vice President

Chichilnisky v. Columbia University
Case adopted 11/02

Recent News (updated 06/08)
UPDATE: CHICHILNISKY VS. COLUMBIA

On June 26, 2008 after 10 days of trial, Graciela Chichilnisky through her attorneys came to a settlement with Columbia University.

Members of AAUW in New York State were present at the trial to show the court that our AAUW LAF Litigant had the full support of our organization.

The following branches and their members committed to attend the trial while it was in progress. All attending members wore stickers with AAUW – LAF so that Graciela, her attorneys and the court could easily identify them and know they were present to support our LAF Supported Litigant.

Many thanks to:

AAUW Manhattan members:
Ellen Katz, Virginia Maynard, Jane Alwais, Jan Smith, Edith Langford, Judith Ryder, Mildred DeWitt, Barbara Dagen and Min Chan who made the commitment and followed through when called upon.

AAUW Westchester members:
Wilma Gitchel, Roli Wendorf

AAUW North Shore member:
Diane Haney

On July 1, 2008 the New York Sun interviewed Mildred DeWitt, the AAUW New York State LAF VP regarding the outcome of the trial. Graciela stated that she was pleased with the outcome, she retained tenure, will continue to teach and work on her research.
Mildred DeWitt felt that the results could have been more definitive in regard to gender equity and pay discrimination. A copy of the NY Sun Article will be distributed to all NY State Branches at Delta Lake. You may obtain a copy by contacting the AAUW NYS LAF VP, Mildred DeWitt through the link at the AAUW NYS website.

Case History
Graciela Chichilnisky, professor of statistics at Columbia University and UNESCO Professor of Math and Economics, sued the university for pay inequity, retaliation for complaining about pay inequity, and breach of settlement agreement in violation of New York state laws.

Chichilnisky has been a tenured professor at Columbia University since 1979. In 1991, she filed an action in federal district court as the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Columbia, alleging that the university had committed violations of both Title VII and the Equal Pay Act by maintaining a policy of compensating female faculty members considerably less than their male counterparts. (The basis for this suit surfaced years earlier, when Chichilnisky attained information revealing her salary to be roughly 30 percent lower than the median salary of her male colleagues at the same rank in her department.) The class action portion of the suit was eventually dropped, and the suit ultimately settled in Chichilnisky’s favor. She subsequently entered into a settlement agreement in 1995 with Columbia.

Despite Columbia’s promises in the settlement agreement to provide Chichilnisky with certain resources for both herself and the programs she directs, Chichilinsky alleges that the promises have been either unfulfilled or retracted. She claims that the instances of retaliation and breach of the settlement agreement intensified and became more frequent upon the appointment in 1999 of Vice Provost Michael Crow as interim head of the Earth Institute. (The Earth Institute is an umbrella unit under which the Program on Information and Resources (PIR), a program of which Chichilnisky is the director, is administrated.) According to Chichlinisky, following Crow’s appointment, accounts of research funds were intermittently frozen and payments to Chichilnisky and the other staff and consultants of PIR were withheld, which increasingly hampered PIR’s ability to function. Furthermore, in January 2000, Columbia announced that it would dissolve the UNESCO Chair, the position held by Chichilnisky.

Following an incident in late February 2000, when she argues that Columbia began aggressively dismantling the office space of the PIR, Chichilnisky filed the current suit against the university. The university filed counterclaims against Chichilnisky in March 2003, alleging that she breached a duty of loyalty to the university and violated the terms of the 1995 settlement agreement concerning certain teaching responsibilities. In February 2004, the court denied Chichilnisky's motion for summary judgment regarding these counterclaims.

Key Case Issues
Pay inequity, retaliation for complaining about pay inequity, and breach of settlement agreement in violation of New York state laws.

Total LAF Contributions to Date
$50,443.50: $44,500 from AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund ($5,000 of which was made possible though a gift from the Rockefeller Family Foundation), $5,000 from the Marguerite Rawalt Legal Defense Fund, and $943.50 from donor-designated contributions.

Other Recent Cases:

deMartin v. New Mexico Highlands University (adopted 3/06)

Case History

Lyn deMartin, former Director of the Santa Fe Center of New Mexico Highlands University, sued the university for sex discrimination in pay, race discrimination and retaliation for complaining of sex discrimination in wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, sec 28-1-10.

deMartin began her employment at New Mexico Highlands University in January 1999 as the International Program Director/ International Student Recruiter.  In August 1999 she was promoted to Director of the Santa Fe Center. During her tenure as director, deMartin expanded the University’s programs and significantly increased enrollment at the Santa Fe Center. The University has three centers, each with its own director. In July 2003, the University president informed the directors that they would be receiving raises in salary. Kim Carpenter (male), director of one of the other centers, informed deMartin in September 2003 that he had received a raise and suggested that she submit a form requesting a salary increase. She submitted the form and received a call from the office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs questioning her request. After deMartin submitted an additional letter explaining her request she was told by the Vice-President for Academic Affairs that the University President had “cut a side deal” with Carpenter. She was offered and accepted an increase of $5,000 per year retroactive to July 2003.

In February 2004, the management team, of which deMartin is a part, received a list of every employee that included salary information. It was then that she discovered that Carpenter was making $71,000 per year and the other center director, Lew Granados, was making $72,000 per year. deMartin, post-raise, was making $57, 788 per year. She complained to the head of Human Resources and was told that she had the smallest center and that there was a formula determining compensation. When she pressed to see the formula, no one could define it. According to deMartin, the head of Human resources told her “only factories pay by the piece,” implying that enrollment is not a factor in determining salary. The differences in center size is greater between Granados’ center and Carpenter’s center than between deMartin’s center and Carpenter’s center yet, the pay differential between Granados and Carpenter is only $1,000, while the pay difference between Carpenter and deMartin is $ 13,212. Numerous witnesses, including Carpenter, are willing to testify that the work undertaken by all three directors was identical.

In April 2004, deMartin filed a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC and the New Mexico Department of Labor Human Rights Division (NM HRD). In June 2004 a new president was announced. On July 23, 2004, deMartin was terminated, one week prior to the scheduled mediation of her sex discrimination claim. The university refused to mediate after her termination.

In November 2004, deMartin filed a second claim with the EEOC and the NM HRD alleging retaliation for filing a sex discrimination claim and race discrimination (deMartin claims that the employees terminated were disproportionately white, while the employees hired to replace them were disproportionately Hispanic and Native American). The NM HRD, backed by the EEOC, found she had probable cause for her sex discrimination claim, but no probable cause for her race claim. On July 11, 2005, deMartin filed a complaint for sex discrimination, race discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as well as other claims.

deMartin's case settled the day she learned she had received support from LAF. She had a mediation that day and upon telling the university that LAF was supporting her case, the U.S. District Court judge serving as mediator encouraged the university to take the issue more seriously. The university and deMartin came to an agreement and the university settled with her for a sizeable amount.

Key Case Issues
Wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Total LAF Contributions to Date
$5,000 from LAF

Schuster v. Berea College (adopted 3/06)

Recent News (updated 12/07)
A jury found in favor of the college in November. Schuster's attorney has presented her motion for appeal.
Case History
Claire Schuster, a tenured Associate Professor of Nursing at Berea College, sued the institution for sex discrimination in pay in violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract.

Claire Schuster began working at Berea College in 1995 as an Assistant Professor. In Spring 2001, she was awarded tenure, and in the spring of 2002, she was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor. In May 2002, she received a letter informing her that her salary for the next academic year would be $47,000, which included a salary increase associated with her promotion to the rank of associate professor. The letter included a chart comparing the average salaries of faculty at Berea with those of other similar institutions. Schuster’s salary, according to this chart, was $5,000 less than the average for other Berea professors at her rank and only $600 more than the lowest salary within that salary range.

At the same time, Schuster learned that the all-female nursing department had hired its first male faculty member at a salary that exceeded the salaries paid to female nursing faculty members, and that he had been hired directly into the associate level.

Schuster claims that the Dean of Faculty indicated he negotiated the male faculty member’s salary, but that the male faculty member has stated that he did not negotiate the higher salary. According to Schuster, at the time of his hire, the male faculty member had significantly less teaching experience and professional experience in comparison to her eight years of teaching and 28 years as a nurse. Additionally, she claims that he did not have the requisite six years of experience at the assistant professor level or any special qualifications that would have justified his higher rank and salary, compared to other women faculty.

Schuster claims that when the nursing faculty learned that the male faculty member had been hired as an Associate Professor, they expressed their opposition to the Chair of the Nursing Department. The chair explained that it was necessary to hire him as an Associate Professor because of the salary that he was offered, which was above the salary bracket for an assistant professor. At the end of August 2002, several of the nursing faculty shared their concerns with the dean; Schuster claims that the dean stated that hiring the male faculty member at the rank of associate professor was a mistake, but that they needed to provide him with a higher salary because of his market value as a pediatric nurse practitioner. Schuster was informed by the dean that a 1% raise that she received as an upward adjustment based on market factors, although the letter she was provided with her salary for the 2002-03 year did not state that this adjustment was based on market factors.
In early September 2002, Schuster met with the dean to discuss her concerns further. Schuster sent a letter to him summarizing their discussion and received a response from him at the end of October asking her to wait to address her grievances until spring 2003. In February 2003, Schuster was informed by the dean that no change in salary decisions had been made.

In November 2003, Schuster filed a complaint alleging sex discrimination in pay under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The case is in summary judgment and a pre-trial hearing is set for May 18, 2006.The judge denied the university's motion to exclude evidence and testimony regarding the salaries of other female nursing faculty. The jury ruled against Schuster at her trial, however, Schuster will appeal.

Key Case Issues
Pay inequity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Total LAF Contributions to Date
$19,000 from AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund