Annie Laurie KEYES, Appellant, v. LENOIR RHYNE COLLEGE, a Non-Profit Corporation, Et Al., Appellees
552 F.2d 579
4th Cir.
1977
Check Treatment

*3 party person annoyance, or embar AFFIRMED. rassment, oppression, undue burden or ** scope *and expense CRAVEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: lies within discretion of the trial order I think the statistical will be judge and reversed if there is establishes pattern, practice, or abuse custom of discretion. Galella v. discrimina- Onassis, (2 1973); F.2d based on sex 487 986 Cir. General tion female faculty Corp. Co., Dynamics respect compensation, members with Manufacturing Selb (8 1973); F.2d 1204 8 Wright 481 Cir. & that the defendants are evi- Miller, Procedure, Federal Practice and equal pay have denied to female (1970). present In case the Col faculty members for the same or similar lege confidentiality of the performed by work male faculty members. Specifically, department position 10. furnished the follow- The annual held ing faculty every information: member. special recognitions 11. All and honors of every 1. The name or number of faculty every member with dates. faculty member. 2. The sex of each member. Dynamics Corp. 5. General v. Selb Manufactur- degrees 3. The earned and dates of each (8 ing 1973). Cir. degree every faculty member. 4. The date of at Lenoir necessarily judgmental, Such evaluations are rely upon seen and had the fit to them present rank of the members. question we be faced with the would delicate 6. The tenure status of the members. judg whether he court should “substitute promotion 7. The dates of in rank of judg for the rational well-considered date tenure was possessing expertise ment of those granted. Regents field.” v. Board of Green of Texas earning every University, (N.D. 8. The annual F.Supp. Tech Tex.1971), member. (5 1973). aff’d 474 F.2d 594 Cir. See appointments University, committee (2 9. The annual Faro v. New York 502 F.2d 1229 every 1974). member. explain any disparity found, vincing I think the jury so advisory in disre- his discretion demon- judge abused jury. strating advice that such differentials were based garding reasonable and nondiscrim- year, Professor school 1972-73 In point to no such inatory they factors.” But was the lowest (the plaintiff) question to the (except factors receiving a on the there was discrimination be- whether point objective $12,134, yet her stated ing permitted degree, into consideration (which took total age). Nor can I find in the merit) ranked her rank, opinion precisely what factors highest 16. The second out of tenth objectively account for are different score was point male whose departments. comparisons, Keyes. These lower than face, admit- on their are disparate that even *4 depart- I within the same significance because compelling tedly not of legitimate may vari- College’s professors all of the they include college may administrators ances departmentally. down not broken and are into take account the differences properly does, however, a com- contain record teaching prior in education and in quality departments within the parison qualitative and other factors. 13a, Sal- Exhibit “Confidential —Plaintiff’s below to But the Education Within Information.” ary for account a Mrs. of which Department have set forth examples I hereinabove. Keyes, who member, that Mrs. appears it shows, example, that when a in 1968-69 received was a the difference between the explain $9,450, whereas salary of within the of a man and a woman salaries $10,206 salary of a received Schwarzbek Bost, department, College’s same professor and an associate although he was say responded that he could president, a full and she was nontenured the woman’s what accounted for precisely documentary evidence and tenured. 663). He was the salary. (App. at lower also shows the Education attempted only witness $12,015 paid Mr. Wiener was Exhibit 13a. disparities $11,667, Mr. although Keyes received Mrs. a a case It is clear profes- nontenured assistant Wiener facie case establish may this pro- was a tenured full and Mrs. sor Barnett v. W. T. Grant evidence. fessor. (4th 1975). It is also ap- Mathematics In the here has done me that clear to that Mrs. Hawn received pears College has failed to satis- so and $10,438, $9,129 Mr. Smith a disparity in salaries factorily explain they were of the same rank and although as between departments Hawn nontenured and Mrs. Mr. Smith females. tenured. an instruction reverse with I would Mrs. English Department Swink In the advisory jury. verdict of the accept the $6,606 paid and Mr. Mahan was $8,865, although both were of same English Also in the and nontenured.

rank $7,695 Mr. Whitesides Jeffers, $5,895, they were was not and and he

tenured rank. showing, my

Despite conclude, judge, as did the district

brothers clear and con- College “presented