Judge rules against Illinois State professor in wage discrimination case

Meredith Downes, a professor in the Management and Qualitative Methods Department in ISU’s College of Business, had alleged that she had faced wage discrimination as a woman and had faced retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Mihm issued his decision in favor of ISU and against Downes on Friday. It came in response to the university's motion for summary judgment, a type of court ruling reached without the case going to a full trial. 

Downes’ attorney, Robert Porter of Costigan and Wollrab, declined to comment on the outcome or a potential appeal, as did ISU spokesman Eric Jome. Both said they do not normally comment on litigation.

In her lawsuit, Downes had said she had been consistently paid less than male professors in the department and denied opportunities the other professors received. The retaliation claim was in regard to a comment made by a former chair who said that some of Downes’ accusations against another former chair could be slander.

Much of Mihm’s opinion is based on ISU’s raise system, which includes performance evaluations and potential use of additional funds to address pay equity concerns. Those concerns include salary inversion, when newer professors are hired when market salaries are higher, so are paid more than professors who have been in the department longer. 

Salary inversion and compression are "systemic issues" for ISU, the judge wrote.

Mihm also noted that most of the male colleagues to whom Downes compared herself did not hold comparable positions. Reasons include them being named Distinguished or University professors, being chair or holding other administrative positions, all of which increased their pay.

Downes did not dispute any of her performance evaluation results, which are used to determine raises, Mihm wrote. Since 2016, she has also been receiving larger raises, in part due to efforts to address salary inversion. 

On the retaliation claim, Mihm said Downes had not sufficiently shown that she had faced an adverse reaction for engaging in action protected under law. He further wrote that the chair who received Downes' complaint had tried to advocate for the professor’s advancement, allocating more money for equity raises and recommending Downes for an endowed professor position.