Jennifer Freyd to UO President Schill on 11 December 2020

From: Jennifer Freyd
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 11:58 AM
To: Mike Schill
Subject: From Jennifer Freyd to Mike Schill

Dear Mike,

I am writing to ask you to reconsider a decision that was relayed to me denying me my right to both pursue justice and take part in a retirement incentive program recently offered to all eligible faculty.

As you know, in 2014 I discovered a statistically significant gender pay inequity for full professors in the department of psychology.  As the pay inequity grew with seniority, I also saw that I was particularly impacted.  I immediately took this to department leadership.  Over the next two years we discussed these issues in the department.  There was no meaningful dispute about the salary facts nor that it was a concern.  Indeed, the department put into its own written self-study document information about a substantial pay inequity that needed to be remedied. This information was then also raised by an external review committee.  By late summer 2016 my dept head wrote to the deans at CAS expressing concern over the gender pay inequity, particularly as it impacted me, and asked that it be address.  I was called into a meeting with the deans in January 2017 in order to be told that the department head’s request was denied.  In March of 2017 I filed a lawsuit in federal court over the pay inequity.  In May of 2019 the district court granted the UO’s motion for summary judgment, primarily on the grounds that my job was “different” than that of the men paid more than me. 

Because this decision struck me as a miscarriage of justice both for me and other women (including the UO’s own students and faculty), I appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  I was not the only person who considered the decision an error that would potentially cause harm to many people.  The AAUP filed an amicus brief in support of my appeal.  Forty-eight other organizations signed a second amicus brief in support of my appeal.  A hearing was held at the Ninth Circuit in May 2020 and we are waiting for a ruling.  This case has profound implications for me and many other women.

I want to make sure you know that the Department of Psychology has recently distributed among faculty a report of current equity considerations, concluding that there remains a substantial pay inequity for full professors in the department. The report indicates: “there are substantial gender differences among associate professors (7.4-8.1k) and full professors (16.8-17.5k) favoring males.” This new report was written more than 4 years after the department head’s 2016 letter to the deans about such a situation.  It appears the pay inequity in psychology has not been corrected at all by the university.

I am not the only one impacted by this discrimination – numerous other women are impacted – but as the most senior woman the pay discrepancy for me versus what the regression line indicates I would be paid as a man is particularly pronounced.  The department head provided several graphs that I am pasting here.  Whether the department looks at pay by years since PhD --

Or pay by years in rank –

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the department head’s graphs make clear that I am paid $45,000 to $60,000 less in gross salary than would be expected by the regression line for men.  (There is in addition the substantial loss toward my retirement contributions.)

While waiting for the Ninth Circuit decision, I received an email on November 16 offering me a financial package in exchange for my retiring from the UO in June of this year.  As the UO’s continued unwillingness to pay me fairly creates an extremely unwelcoming environment for me, I would consider the retirement incentive . When I next inquired to HR about the specific terms of the retirement agreement, I was directed to a website with an example agreement letter that included a release on all claims against the UO. 

Unsure if this would include my current litigation, I requested through my attorney that my current litigation be explicitly excluded from a general release that I was otherwise willing to sign.  My request was flatly denied.

I was shocked by this as the required release feels to me both discriminatory and retaliatory.  Discriminatory because releasing civil rights claims clearly is going to have more impact on women and other individuals who are more likely to have been discriminated against than on more privileged individuals.  Retaliatory because as far as I know I am the only faculty member at the UO with a civil rights suit in court. 

The message of the UO’s stance to date is clear:  if you pursue your civil rights in court, you will be denied benefits that others are provided.  Mike, to me this is tantamount to saying: “Jennifer drop your lawsuit now or lose your early retirement benefit.” Not only is the denial decision harmful to me, it is harmful to all women at the UO. Ultimately this denial will be harmful to the institution itself.

I am writing to you now asking you to reconsider this decision in the name of justice and for the good of the University of Oregon and its many women students, faculty, and staff. 

Jennifer

Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD
Professor of Psychology, University of Oregon
Editor, Journal of Trauma & Dissociation
Affiliated Faculty, Women's Leadership Lab, Stanford University
Founder and President, Center for Institutional Courage