## Facts

- The University of Washington set faculty pay through separate schools (including Nursing), with schools recommending salaries subject to central budget limits.
- Nursing faculty members alleged they were paid less than faculty in other, largely male-dominated professional schools due to sex discrimination.
- In 1972, nursing faculty filed an internal petition alleging sex-based wage discrimination.
- The University studied salaries and authorized an additional 2% increase for Nursing to reduce a perceived salary deficit, while maintaining that discipline-based market conditions explained pay differences.
- Plaintiffs asserted their work was comparable across professional schools because faculty generally performed teaching, research, publication, committee work, advising, and service.
- Plaintiffs offered statistical and job-comparison evidence to support a claim that Nursing (a predominantly female discipline) was underpaid.
- One plaintiff, Ruth Fine, separately claimed her hospital nursing-administrator position was substantially equal to two higher-paid male hospital administrators’ jobs.
- A magistrate, acting as special master, found Fine’s position had narrower responsibilities and less managerial authority than the male administrators’ jobs.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs established an Equal Pay Act prima facie case by proving “substantially equal” work compared to higher-paid male comparators in other schools (and, for Fine, male hospital administrators).
2. Whether plaintiffs proved intentional sex discrimination in compensation under Title VII (disparate treatment), including whether their statistical and anecdotal evidence was sufficient.
3. Whether plaintiffs could challenge discipline-based, market-referenced pay under a Title VII disparate impact theory, or were instead seeking an impermissible “comparable worth” remedy.
4. Whether the district court properly conducted de novo review of objected-to magistrate findings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and properly dismissed under Rule 41(b).
5. Whether dismissal of the § 1983 claim and denial of attorneys’ fees were proper.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment dismissing the action under Rule 41(b).
- The Equal Pay Act claims failed because plaintiffs did not prove the compared jobs were “substantially equal” in skill, effort, and responsibility; Fine likewise failed to show substantial equality with the male hospital administrators.
- The Title VII disparate treatment claim failed because plaintiffs did not show sex motivated the compensation decisions; their statistics did not adequately account for factors such as discipline, rank, and experience, and the record did not show pretext.
- The court rejected the Title VII disparate impact theory to the extent it sought court-imposed comparable worth; reliance on market and discipline differences was not treated as a Title VII violation without proof of discrimination.
- The district court satisfied the required de novo review of the magistrate’s findings and did not err in dismissing after plaintiffs’ case-in-chief.
- The court upheld dismissal of the § 1983 claim and denied attorneys’ fees because plaintiffs were not prevailing parties.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Pay Act liability requires proof of “substantially equal” work; generalized similarity or job “comparability” across different positions or disciplines is insufficient.
- In pay discrimination cases, statistical proof must account for major nondiscriminatory variables (including discipline, rank, and experience) to support an inference of discrimination.
- Title VII does not require an employer to equalize compensation across different jobs or disciplines based on job-evaluation “worth” theories absent proof of discriminatory intent or an unlawful employment practice.
- A district court may dismiss under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff’s evidence if the plaintiff fails to establish essential elements, and must conduct de novo review of objected-to magistrate findings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of nursing faculty wage-discrimination claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove substantially equal work under the Equal Pay Act or intentional sex discrimination under Title VII, and that Title VII does not authorize a comparable-worth remedy based on cross-discipline market pay differences.


Spaulding v. Univ. of Wash., 740 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1984)