Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Nittany Lion Inn, which is owned by Penn State University, alleged that she became pregnant after she was sexually assaulted by a co-worker, who then harassed her, demanding she terminate the pregnancy. Plaintiff reported the harassment and requested to work different shifts than her alleged harasser. Her manager reduced the number of shifts they worked together and offered to transfer her from dishwashing shifts to housekeeping, but plaintiff quit, saying she felt she was being pushed out. She brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University under Titles VII and IX. The court ruled that a reasonable juror could find that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive. The court then permitted plaintiff’s discrimination claim under Title VII to proceed, finding a question as to whether the manager took sufficient measures to end the alleged harassment, but it granted summary judgment in favor of the University on her claim under Title IX, finding no juror could conclude that the manager was deliberately indifferent. It granted summary judgment to the University on plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding no evidence to suggest that the proposed transfer was motivated by discriminatory animus.   

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Senior Associate Athletic Director of Internal Operations at Alabama State University, brought pay discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after a new Athletic Director eliminated her position in favor of a new Senior Associate Athletic Director/Chief of Staff role for which one of the AD’s former direct reports was hired. Plaintiff was also designated as the Senior Woman Administrator, though she did not receive the additional compensation the University had earmarked in its budget for the function. The court granted summary judgment to the University on her Equal Pay Act claim, finding that plaintiff failed to identify proper comparators, and her assertion that two male employees received the same salary for less work was insufficient to show that they were paid more for equal work. It granted summary judgment to the University on both her retaliation and Title IX discrimination claims, ruling that her challenges to the wisdom of the University’s proposed reorganization and budget process fell short of raising questions of pretext.