Law & Courts

Federal Appeals Court Revives Teacher’s Pay-Discrimination Case Over Starting Salary

By Mark Walsh — January 05, 2021 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived the employment-discrimination lawsuit of an Indiana high school science teacher who allegedly was told when she was hired that her starting pay was sufficient because her husband worked and together they “would have a fine salary.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, reinstated the suit filed by Cheryl Kellogg, who was hired as a life sciences teacher at the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and the Humanities. The residential school for high school juniors and seniors is on the campus of and is operated by Ball State University in Muncie, Ind.

Kellogg was hired in 2006 as a life sciences teacher at a starting salary of $32,000, court papers say. When she sought to negotiate higher starting pay, an academy administrator allegedly told her he wouldn’t pay her more than his teachers with Ph.D’s. And, her suit alleges, the administrator told her that because he knew Kellogg’s husband worked at Ball State, she “didn’t need any more money” because the couple would have “a fine salary.”

Years later, in 2017, Kellogg complained to the dean of Ball State’s Teachers College, which oversees the academy, that she was being paid less than several similarly situated male colleagues. The dean said the issue was one of higher starting pay for the others and that Kellogg’s salary had increased by more than 36 percent during her years there while her male colleagues’ pay had increased less.

Kellogg sued for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. A federal district court granted summary judgment to the academy, accepting its gender-neutral explanations for the disparities, such as differences in starting pay and in qualifications among the employees. The district court also ruled that the administrator’s alleged 2006 statement about Kellogg’s husband could not support liability for her claims because the statement fell outside the time limitations of the two anti-discrimination statutes.

In its Jan. 5 decision in Kellogg v. Ball State University, the 7th Circuit panel reversed the district court.

The court said the academy’s explanations for the differences in pay are in dispute because “the Academy blatantly discriminated against Kellogg by telling her that, because her husband worked, she did not need any more starting pay. Such clear discrimination calls the sincerity of the academy’s rationales into question.”

The appeals court rejected the academy’s arguments that the administrator’s 2006 comment (which it accepted as true for present purposes) was a “stray remark” that had no real link to Kellogg’s pay over the years.

The administrator’s remark “was not water-cooler talk,” the court said. “It was a straightforward explanation by the academy’s director, who had control over setting salaries, during salary negotiations that Kellogg did not need any more money ‘because’ her husband worked at the university. Few statements could more directly reveal the academy’s motivations.”

Next, the appeals court rejected the academy’s argument that the administrator’s remark could not establish liability because it fell outside the statute of limitations. The court noted that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 had codified the “paycheck accrual rule,” which means a new cause of action for pay discrimination arises under Title VII each time a worker receives a paycheck that is rooted in an earlier discriminatory practice.

The Ledbetter law was Congress’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which had rejected the paycheck accrual rule.

“All of Kellogg’s pay from the academy resulted, at least in part, from [the administrator’s 2006 starting salary] decision because the academy admittedly based Kellogg’s later pay on raises from her starting salary,” the 7th Circuit court said. “Thus, each of Kellogg’s paychecks gave rise to a new cause of action for pay discrimination.”

The court ruled that the paycheck accrual rule also applied to Kellogg’s Equal Pay Act claims. And it said that on remand, Kellogg will be able to pursue evidence that her pay lagged that of several different “comparators”—male colleagues who were paid more.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Budget & Finance Webinar
The ABCs of ESSER: How to Make the Most of Relief Funds Before They Expire
Join a diverse group of K-12 experts to learn how to leverage federal funds before they expire and improve student learning environments.
Content provided by Johnson Controls
Science K-12 Essentials Forum How To Teach STEM Problem Solving Skills to All K-12 Students
Join experts for a look at how experts are integrating the teaching of problem solving and entrepreneurial thinking into STEM instruction.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Modernizing Principal Support: The Road to More Connected and Effective Leaders
When principals are better equipped to lead, support, and maintain high levels of teaching and learning, outcomes for students are improved.
Content provided by BetterLesson

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Conservatives’ Checklist: U.S. Supreme Court Education Decisions to Overrule
Here are five education issues that could be targets for reconsideration if Roe v. Wade falls.
3 min read
The Supreme Court in Washington, Dec. 3, 2021. The Supreme Court has turned away a plea from parents to block a new admissions policy at a prestigious high school in northern Virginia that a lower court had found discriminates against Asian American students.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Dec. 3, 2021.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Law & Courts Leaked Abortion Draft Has Supreme Court Education Cases in Political Cross-Hairs
Conservatives have taken aim at decisions on educating immigrants, race in admissions, and religion. Liberals have some cases in mind, too.
8 min read
supreme court SOC
Getty
Law & Courts 'Brown v. Board' Cited in Draft Supreme Court Opinion to Back Overturning Abortion Rights
The leaked opinion in a case still to be decided by the Supreme Court cites landmark decisions including Brown v. Board of Education.
7 min read
A crowd of people gather outside the Supreme Court, Monday night, May 2, 2022 in Washington. A draft opinion circulated among Supreme Court justices suggests that earlier this year a majority of them had thrown support behind overturning the 1973 case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a report published Monday night in Politico. It's unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter. The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which if verified marks a shocking revelation of the high court's secretive deliberation process, particularly before a case is formally decided.
A crowd gathers outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday night after the leak of a draft opinion suggesting the court intends to overturn the 1973 <i>Roe v. Wade</i> precedent that legalized abortion nationwide.
Alex Brandon/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Rules Against Some 'Emotional Distress' Claims. What It Means for Schools
The dissenters say the decision means students cannot recover damages for the emotional harms of race, sex, or disability bias.
5 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
iStock/Getty