226 F. Supp. 3d 371
M.D. Penn.2016Background
- Joan Summy-Long, a tenured Penn State pharmacology professor (Ph.D. 1978; tenured 1984; full professor 1992), sued Penn State in 2006 alleging sex discrimination and retaliation over pay and other employment actions.
- Faculty pay at the College of Medicine was merit-based and tied to rank, publication, and external (especially NIH) grant funding; departments awarded discretionary merit increases from limited pools.
- The Women’s Faculty Group pressed salary equity beginning around 1999; Penn State commissioned an outside salary study (Haignere) limited to 2001–02, which found a non-statistically significant female salary gap and led to a 3.8% adjustment for tenured/tenure-track white female basic scientists effective July 1, 2004.
- During the applicable limitations window the record showed Summy-Long had limited grant renewal activity and low publication output (one article 2004–2007), prompting supervisory criticism and ultimately an 8.3% salary reduction in 2009 tied to failure to meet external-salary-support benchmarks.
- Procedurally, classwide claims by other women were filed separately and settled; Summy-Long proceeded individually. She changed counsel multiple times, sought repeated discovery extensions, and attempted late theory-shifts in summary judgment briefing. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theory of liability — disparate treatment vs. disparate impact | Summy-Long sought to pursue disparate impact in opposition to summary judgment (arguing systemic pay disparities). | Penn State argued plaintiff pleaded disparate treatment only and did not exhaust or timely plead a disparate impact claim; allowing it would unfairly prejudice defendants. | Court barred late disparate-impact theory (must be pled/amended timely); refused to consider it. |
| Sufficiency of statistical evidence for discrimination (Title VII/PHRA/Title IX) | Relied on Haignere report and later statistics to show women paid less. | Defendants argued the report was methodologically flawed, non-significant, excluded key covariates, covered a single year largely outside limitations period, and cannot substitute for individual proof. | Court held the Haignere study insufficient to establish a prima facie disparate-treatment case; statistics lacked causation and significance. |
| Individualized disparate treatment / pretext (Title VII, EPA, Equal Rights Amendment, §1983/§1985) | Summy-Long claimed she was paid less than similarly situated males and that performance explanations were pretextual. | Defendants showed non-discriminatory reasons: poor publication record, failure to timely renew NIH funding, merit/seniority-based pay decisions, and departmental discretion. | Court found no genuine dispute: plaintiff failed to identify proper comparators or evidence discrediting the non-discriminatory explanations; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Retaliation (Title VII, PHRA, Title IX, First Amendment, §1983) | Plaintiff alleged adverse acts (reduced lab space, website omission, medical/diagnostic interference, hostile treatment) after protected complaints. | Defendants argued actions were not materially adverse, lacked causal link, or concerned non-parties/matters outside complaint scope; many were routine or performance-related. | Court held retaliation claims failed for lack of material adversity and causation; summary judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidence must permit a reasonable jury finding)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (plaintiffs must identify specific employment practices in disparate-impact/class claims)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (disparate-impact plaintiff must isolate specific practices causing disparity)
- Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867 (distinguishing individual disparate-treatment claims from pattern-or-practice proof)
- Josey v. John R. Hollingsworth Corp., 996 F.2d 632 (3d Cir.) (late-shift to disparate-impact theory at summary judgment improper)
- Pouncy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 668 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.) (simple mean-salary comparisons without controlling for non-discriminatory factors are inadequate)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation requires materially adverse action)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation claims require but-for causation)