Dean Emerita of University of Arizona Honors College Sues Over Alleged Gender Pay Discrimination

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

The Dean Emerita of the University of Arizona’s (UA) Honors College has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the state’s 12-member Board of Regents in which she alleges she’s been “dramatically underpaid” by at least tens of thousands of dollars relative to the wages of her male colleagues. The plaintiff, a tenured professor in UA’s Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, claims in the 20-page complaint that her replacement as Honors College dean—a younger, less experienced male individual, the case says—was offered a full-time salary that was “more than $100,000 higher” than what she received in her last full academic year. 

According to the lawsuit, the alleged gender pay discrimination at UA disseminates from those in the school’s highest ranks, with (now former) Provost Andrew C. Comrie at the center of the case’s allegations:

“This pay disparity is a direct result of policies and practices implemented by the University’s leadership, including the current Provost. Female deans at the UA earn less than male deans and are virtually shut out of participation in the University’s Dean’s Council. They are further subjected to humiliating and demeaning treatment by the University’s male leadership to which their male peers are not subjected.”

After a deep dive into the plaintiff’s exemplary credentials and the Honors College’s unparalleled academic and financial growth under her tutelage, the lawsuit details years of complaints from the plaintiff—backed up with data—to UA’s higher-ups regarding her pay. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, soon after her appointment as dean, reportedly learned that she was “the lowest paid dean among the eighteen academic deans,” a disparity that the case says did not change as the years progressed:

“In subsequent years, [the plaintiff] continued to complain about pay disparities to the current Provost, Dr. Comrie, and to seek equity adjustments. She supported her requests with comparative pay data unequivocally demonstrating that she was substantially underpaid relative to her male counterparts. Nevertheless, Provost Comrie consistently denied her any equitable adjustments, perpetuating the ongoing gender-based discrimination against her.”

From here, the plaintiff charges that her unequal pay complaints resulted in retaliation from UA after she informed Comrie of her intent to step down following the 2016-2017 academic year once her five-year term as dean expired. Though both Comrie and the plaintiff agreed to a transition plan that would see the dean serve out the end of her term, the lawsuit claims Comrie unexpectedly disregarded the agreement and terminated the plaintiff’s contract early, creating a situation from which the plaintiff says she “experienced severe emotional distress as a result of the University’s actions, as the speculation surrounding her departure has impacted negatively her professional reputation and her relationships with countless friends, colleagues, students and alumni.”

As for the defendant’s alleged role in the pay discrimination at UA, the lawsuit explains the Board of Regents is the governing body overseeing all of Arizona’s public universities. The plaintiff mentions UA’s provost specifically because the individual in this position, the complaint says, is responsible for both promoting the school’s mission in education and research and working closely with the Deans’ Council in crafting the strategy for the institution’s future. 

An important development tied to the litigation comes to us via the Chronicle of Higher Education, which reported on January 22 that Comrie stepped down following the filing of this lawsuit. University President Robert C. Robbins told the publication Comrie made his decision to leave the post “just after the new year” and that it was “totally unrelated” to the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint. According to the plaintiff, Comrie, who the case pegs as being solely responsible for salary-related decisions for administrative employees, was the leader and chief perpetuator of “a culture that marginalizes, demeans, and undervalues women” at UA. The complaint does not stop there with regard to Comrie’s alleged pattern of improper conduct:

“Upon information and belief, Provost Comrie has a history of making sexist and demeaning comments towards female deans. For example, in a meeting with a female dean, Provost Comrie inappropriately criticized her appearance, stating that she should wear skirts more often—a comment that was wholly irrelevant to her job. In the same meeting, he also told this female dean that another female dean had a ‘Hillary Clinton complex.’ As a result of such misconduct, at least one female dean left her deanship at least in part to escape discriminatory misconduct by Provost Comrie. A departing female dean remarked that she believed that her college would be treated better by Provost Comrie if she were succeeded by a man.”

The lawsuit rounds out by again stressing that Comrie’s alleged conduct needs particular inspection given that he had nearly total control over deans’ salaries.

“Provost Comrie’s attitude and behavior towards women played a prominent role in his compensation decisions and refusal to make appropriate equity adjustments for women who were underpaid relative to their male peers,” the plaintiff alleges. 

The full complaint can be read below.