Case Title: Ballard v. University of Vermont

Citation: 166 Vt. 612, 693 A.2d 713

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Ballard v. University of Vermont  (95-363); 166 Vt. 612; 693 A.2d 713

[Filed 26-Mar-1997]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-363

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996

Lynne Ballard                        }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Chittenden Superior Court
                                     }
University of Vermont and State      }
Agricultural College, John           }     DOCKET NO.  S229-92CNC
Hennessey and Gerald Francis         }

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Lynne Ballard appeals from an adverse jury verdict on claims
  of sex discrimination against defendant University of Vermont (UVM) under
  the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII, and Vermont's Fair Employment Practices
  Act (FEPA).  She argues that the court erred by denying her the opportunity
  to use her sixth peremptory challenge and by admitting testimony on the
  quality of the performance of her successor.(FN1)  We agree and reverse.

       Plaintiff began working in the Division of Continuing Education at UVM
  in the summer of 1979 shortly after receiving her master's degree in Higher
  Education and Student Affairs. At the end of the summer, plaintiff was
  appointed as assistant director of operations, and in 1982, she became
  acting director of the Division.  Plaintiff received her doctoral degree in
  Educational Administration and Planning in 1987, and the following year,
  UVM initiated a national search for the permanent position of director. 
  Plaintiff applied for the position, and the search committee selected
  plaintiff as one of four finalists whose names were forwarded to the
  Provost.  Ultimately, the Provost hired Edward Twardy in 1990 to fill the
  permanent position of director at a salary about $28,000 per year more than
  UVM had paid plaintiff.  Plaintiff filed suit against UVM, the Provost and
  the Interim Provost, alleging various claims of sex discrimination.  The
  individual defendants were dismissed at trial, a jury rendered a verdict
  for defendant UVM, and plaintiff appeals.

       Plaintiff first claims that the court erred by denying her the
  opportunity to use her sixth peremptory challenge.  After plaintiff's
  counsel exercised five of his six peremptory challenges, he was satisfied
  with the jury and "passed."  Defense counsel then struck juror number 2,
  bringing juror number 13 onto the panel.  Plaintiff's counsel challenged
  juror 13 for cause, but the court declined to remove the juror. 
  Plaintiff's counsel then requested to use his sixth peremptory challenge,
  but the court denied the request.  On appeal, plaintiff claims that the
  court erred by considering plaintiff's "pass" to be a waiver of the sixth
  peremptory challenge.

       This Court ruled on this issue soon after the jury trial in this case. 
  In Westcom v. Meunier, ___ Vt. ___, ___,