A jury voted in favor of two women who sued Virginia Tech for paying them less than their male counterparts.
Thursday's ruling in Roanoke's U.S. District Court awarded Shana Maron — formerly known as Shana Kennedy before a divorce — and Greta Hanes $25,000 and $15,000 in back pay, respectively, under the Equal Pay Act.
These amounts could be doubled if Tech fails to prove it acted in good faith when determining the women’s salaries. A date for that hearing has not been set.
Maron was also awarded $61,000, which is roughly one years pay, because she proved Tech retaliated against her when she complained about a pay disparity.
Erin Hofberg’s claim based on the EPA was time barred.
Nicholas Woodfield, lead attorney for the Maron case, said after the jury heard the evidence, it found that Tech couldn’t demonstrate that gender wasn’t a factor when determining the plaintiffs’ salaries.
Mark Owczarski, director of university relations, said Tech finds the ruling disappointing and unfortunate.
“It is our principle and practice to treat all employees with respect within a supportive environment,” Owczarski said.
Owczarski also said the university has not decided whether it will appeal the verdict.
According to the case files, Maron was hired as an assistant director of university development in March 2006. She later worked in the same position for development in engineering. Her annual salary was $49,000.
When Maron applied for a regional director position in 2007, she told Robert Bailey, the senior director of regional gifts for university development she expected a $68,500 annual salary. Field Glover, the male who last held the position, started at that amount.
The case files said Bailey offered Maron a $48,000 annual salary, and told her she was not worth the same as Glover because she was a woman.
Hanes was a regional director of major gifts from October 2006 to April 2008. Her annual salary was $53,500.
According to the files, the plaintiff’s male counterparts, Justin Mosby, Benjamin Grove, James Grove and Christopher Lawson, were paid $55,000, $61,000, $63,000 and $67,000 annual salaries upon hire, respectively.
A version of this article appeared in the Apr 15 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 28 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I overlooked this story for a while thinking it's just another one of those cases where someone is out to sue someone just to get more money ect but After reading the facts (if they are true) in this article then it appears this women had a very legit case against VT. What a shame.
Reply to this Top
Good for them- they did the seemingly impossible and put VT in their place.
Reply to this Top
It would be good if this article provided some more information, like what VT used to support its case. I'm willing to bet there were some relevant differences in experience, qualifications, etc that would justify the pay difference.
Reply to this Top
It's possible that what you said could be true, however with the statistics today about the huge pay difference between men and women, it would not even surprise me if these women did indeed have a legit case. It's a man's world out there sadly.
Reply to this Top
What statistics are you looking at? This week from the Wall Street Journal - women make more than men these days:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Top
...between the ages of 22 and 30.
Top
Often it's a "man's world" because women put themselves in that position. Women tend not to ask for a higher starting salary, tend not to push for raises, etc. As a result, they start lower and stay lower on the pay scale. We want to be "nice" and "liked" and it hurts us.
Top
@Jochebed- you are right- women often just grin and bare it... and that is exactly why it is important for us to learn to sum up every bit of courage that we can to fight for what is right and fair. I admire these women for asking for equal pay and for taking their fight all the way to court. It probably took more courage to do that than I could even begin to imagine.
Top
I hope you make as much as a man who can't properly use colloquialisms. It's grin and *bear* it, and you *summon* up courage.
Top
@"colloquialisms"- really? Obviously you missed the point of the whole article if you are seriously THAT hung up on the correct usage of colloquialisms... this section is for subjective commentary, not the editing of grammar...
Top
Young women make more than men. WSJ and Time have both reported that study. The only reason women ever made less than men is because they had less experience, worked less (30 hours still = "full-time", but men working 50+ hours a week are also still "full-time", so there's no comparability there), or just weren't as competitive as men are in asking for raises or taking credit for things (women often share credit for accomplishments, whereas men are more likely to take full credit if they actually did all the work).
Top
Actually no- according to the linked documents in the last article, it was quite clear to me, and apparently to a jury, that the men hired in comparison to the women in this case were in fact less qualified professionally, received less education, had zero previous field experience, held no professional certifications, and in fact, performed less productively than these women while employed at Tech. Good for them- the message was very clear. I am happy for them.
Reply to this Top
@Jimmy I am so glad you found that opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal that cites a single study on unmarried urban women between 22 and 30. Now that the issue of wage parity has been settled, VT should be getting their money back, right?
Reply to this Top
Good job, Jimmy.... I agree with you "Reader"- maybe VA Tech should have hired Jimmy to defend them in court.
Reply to this Top
@reader I am so glad you neglected to link any documentation at all that supports your view. Now that the issue of not having to prove things if they're negative to a minority/women has been settled WSJ should get their facts back, right?
The reason the article says 22 - 30 is because after that age there are reasons women get paid less. The article mentions plenty: they can leave the work force for a few years or take lower paying jobs with a more set schedule. These are choices that some women make, and that's fine. You don't gain the same relevant work experience at home raising kids that someone else does while working and thus you don't deserve the same pay as someone who never left the workforce.
TL;DR: Don't bash people for not providing enough support for their view when you don't provide any.
Reply to this Top
Reading comprehension is another reason why some people get paid less than others. I presume that "reader" is just another butthurt female who gets paid less because she doesn't understand she's supposed to do for her job exactly.
There is not a single study that controls for all of the important variables necessary to properly compare men's and women's salaries. They all omit important things like ACTUAL hours worked, subjective factors, actual job duties, etc.
Reply to this Top
Let's all remember that while Virginia Tech is an institution of higher learning - it's also a business. VT has all of the frailty, faults, and deceptions of any modern US corporation. As such, the pressure to denigrate for profit is not only present but absurdly abound. Does any of this come as a surprise? It shouldn't. That said, inequity persists in some form, nothing is absolute. Will there be argument to justify based on merit? efficacy? employment history?
The sexism angle steals is rather paltry here.
Reply to this Top
Anyone know what it means when a claim is "time barred?"
Reply to this Top
a statute of limitations had expired would be my guess....
Reply to this Top
She should have won too... I'm not exactly sure what "time barred" means either, but obviously there was merit to this case.
Top
She should have won too... I'm not exactly sure what "time barred" means either, but obviously there was merit to this case.
Top
Yeah, for the other two, good for them. I know her personally, and I think she got what she deserved.
Top
What do you mean by "you know her personally and she got what she deserved"- are you with them or against them? I am not a feminist, but I am personally glad for their win and I believe in their case.
Top
I'm a man who discovered the wheel, and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn! That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.
Reply to this Top
Don't you know that women have brains the size of a squirrel's? I have many leatherbound books.
Reply to this Top
Your commentary is marginally comical at the very least. Go back to bed you ego-driven, "big-brained", wheel-creating "with brawn", Paris-chewed-you-up-and-spit-you-back-out little man-boys and sleep your hangovers off... come back and join the discussion when you are sober.
Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
and the mandatory movie end titles:
The official accused in the lawsuit, Robert H. Bailey, continues to work for Virginia Tech. For his contributions, he was promoted to "Senior Director of Major Gifts" and continues to draw a $90,300 salary.
See http://www.givingto.vt.edu/Contact/directory-organizational.html and http://www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries/virginia-tech?name=Robert+H.+Bailey
Reply to this Top