## Facts

- Leah Stern, Marilyn Denny, and Catherine Dower were female faculty members at Westfield State College (WSC).
- WSC was governed by the Massachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education; the court treated WSC and the Board as “employers” under Title VII.
- The plaintiffs believed WSC paid them less than comparable male faculty members and sued under Title VII for sex discrimination in compensation.
- Denny and Stern filed one action as a putative class case; Dower filed a separate action. The court later consolidated the cases.
- The court denied class certification and dismissed the class allegations, leaving only the three plaintiffs’ individual claims.
- The parties stipulated that, within academic rank, WSC teaching jobs were substantially equal in skill, effort, and responsibility and were performed under similar working conditions.
- The same stipulation recognized that faculty may have different professional qualifications (education, experience, discipline, and related background) that could legitimately affect pay if actually used in setting salaries.
- At the bench trial, plaintiffs relied on both (a) individual comparisons between each plaintiff and male faculty in similar rank/department and (b) statistical proof aimed at showing an overall sex-based salary gap.
- Plaintiffs’ statistician, Dr. Arlene Ash, used regression analysis of male faculty salaries to build a model explaining much of the variation in men’s salaries (including factors such as seniority, department, and prior experience), then applied that model to estimate what comparable women would have been paid; her analysis found a statistically significant shortfall for female faculty.
- Ash’s model did not include Distinguished Service Awards (DSAs), which WSC argued mattered because DSAs disproportionately went to women.
- Defendants’ statistician, Dr. Ernest Kendall, also performed regression analysis and found a statistically significant female salary deficit in several years; he argued the pattern was tied to a period when WSC hired more men in higher-paid fields such as business administration and computer science due to market competition with private industry.
- The case was tried to the court (bench trial), and the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a).

## Issues

1. Whether WSC and the Board violated Title VII by paying Stern, Denny, and Dower less than similarly situated male faculty members because of sex.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ regression and comparator evidence, together with the parties’ stipulation about substantially equal work within rank, supported an inference of intentional pay discrimination.
3. Whether defendants’ explanations (credentials, experience, discipline-related market conditions, awards, and other factors) were credible and actually applied in a consistent, non-sex-based way.
4. If a Title VII violation occurred, what back pay and equitable relief were appropriate to remedy the compensation discrimination.

## Decision

- The court found that each plaintiff proved a Title VII violation based on sex discrimination in compensation.
- The court credited the existence of pay disparities shown through individual comparisons and statistical proof and concluded the disparities were not adequately explained by legitimate, consistently applied salary-setting factors.
- The court rejected defendants’ attempt to justify the disparities as the product of neutral factors where the asserted reasons did not account for the size and persistence of the gaps or were applied unevenly.
- The court awarded back pay intended to place each plaintiff in the position she would have held absent discrimination.
- The court granted injunctive relief aimed at correcting and preventing discriminatory pay-setting practices, including adjustments affecting future compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits intentional discrimination in compensation on the basis of sex; paying a woman less than similarly situated men for substantially equal work can establish liability when sex is a motivating factor in the pay difference.
- A stipulation that faculty jobs are substantially equal within rank removes job-content disputes and focuses the case on whether pay differences result from neutral factors or sex-based decisionmaking.
- Plaintiffs may use regression analysis and other statistical evidence, together with individual comparator evidence, to support an inference that sex affected pay; an unexplained, statistically significant shortfall may support an inference of discrimination.
- An employer may defend pay differences by pointing to legitimate factors such as education, experience, departmental market conditions, or awards, but the employer must show those factors were actually considered and applied in a consistent way rather than offered after the fact.
- When a court finds Title VII compensation discrimination, it may order back pay and equitable relief (including salary adjustments and forward-looking orders) to make plaintiffs whole and prevent continued violations.

## Conclusion

In Denny v. Westfield State College, the district court held that Westfield State and its governing board violated Title VII by paying three female faculty members less than comparable male faculty, concluding that defendants’ asserted neutral explanations did not credibly or consistently account for the disparities shown by comparator and regression evidence; the court awarded back pay and ordered injunctive relief to correct and prevent discriminatory compensation practices.


Denny v. Westfield State College, 669 F. Supp. 1146 (1987)