Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_95-cv-01313/USCOURTS-azd-3_95-cv-01313-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Rudebusch, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 95-1313-PCT RCB and

) No. CIV 96-1077-PCT RCB

Vs. ) O R D E R

)

State of Arizona, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On June 7, 2006, this Court partially granted Plaintiffs'

cross-motion for summary judgement regarding damages in this

matter. Order (doc. 316). In its order, the Court concluded that

two issues of fact remained in dispute regarding the correct

calculation of damages owed to Plaintiffs. Id. at 18-24.

Specifically, the two issues that remained in dispute were (1) the

actual percentage increases for administrative positions and (2)

whether the purpose of the 1995 adjustments was to remedy the

inequities created by the Hughes adjustments. Id. Accordingly,

the Court granted the parties additional time to present evidence

on these issues. Id. at 23-24. After reviewing each party's 

Case 3:95-cv-01313-RCB Document 321 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Court notes that Defendants' filing entitled "Defendants'

Submission of Evidence Re: 1995 Salary Adjustments and Administrative

Appointments" was not filed in the Court's docket for this case, CIV

95-1313-PCT RCB. Instead, Defendants filed this document in the

docket for CIV 96-1077-PCT RCB. The parties are directed to file all

future pleadings and filings related to this matter in the docket of

the lead case, CIV 95-1313-PCT RCB.

- 2 -

evidence and arguments on these matters, the Court now rules.

At the outset, the Court notes that Defendants no longer

dispute the 22% salary increase for administrative positions that

was included in Plaintiffs' damages proposal. Def. Submission of

Evidence (doc. 24) at 5.1 Hence, the Court concludes that the 22%

salary increase for administrative positions shall apply. 

Unlike the salary increases for administrative positions, the

issue regarding the purpose of the 1995 adjustments remains in

dispute. Defendants have submitted numerous affidavits and other

evidence arguing that the 1995 increases were intended to "further

eliminate any perceived inequity remaining after the Hughes and

Lovett increases[.]" Id. at 2. Additionally, Defendants assert

that "even if this were not the intent, the Plaintiffs would not

have received the 1995 increases (or at least an increase in the

same amount) had they received an increase to their predicted

salary in 1993." Id. The Court is not convinced by either of

these arguments.

First, Defendants concede that the 1995 adjustments were

market equity increases. Id. at 2-3 ("In 1995 the NAU

administration moved to a different benchmark for determining

appropriate salary figures–the prevailing market rate as determined

by comparing NAU salaries to those of peer institutions."). The

fact that the NAU administration may have internally referred to

Case 3:95-cv-01313-RCB Document 321 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

this adjustment as "Lovett Fix 2," as asserted by Defendants, does

not sufficiently establish that the adjustments were intended to

remedy the inequities created by the Hughes adjustments. In fact,

Defendants concede that all faculty, minorities and non-minorities,

were eligible for the 1995 increases. Def. Submission of Evidence

(doc. 24) at 3. They do not deny that some minorities received

such a raise. Moreover, according to Defendants, only twenty-eight

of the Plaintiffs received a raise pursuant to the 1995

adjustments. Id. Thus, not all of the Plaintiffs who had been

harmed by the 1993 Hughes adjustments received a raise under the

1995 adjustments, which Defendants contend were intended to repair

the damage caused to such Plaintiffs by the 1993 Hughes

adjustments. 

Second, Defendants attempt to argue that, even if the 1995

adjustments were not intended to remedy the inequities created by

the Hughes adjustments, they must still be considered in the

damages calculation because the Plaintiffs would not have received

the 1995 increases (or at least an increase in the same amount) had

they received an increase to their predicted salary in 1993. Id.

at 2. Generally, Defendants maintain that if the 1995 adjustments

are not considered in the damages calculation, Plaintiffs will be

"overcompensated." Id. at 3-5. This argument, however, is of no

moment to the issue at hand. In its prior order, the Court granted

the parties additional time to present evidence regarding the

"purpose" of the 1995 adjustments. Order (doc. 316) at 23-24. The

alleged "purpose" was the only factual issue regarding the 1995

adjustments that was raised by the parties in their motions for

summary judgment. Id. at 19-20. Thus, Defendants' argument

Case 3:95-cv-01313-RCB Document 321 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

regarding the alleged "overcompensation" of Plaintiffs is a new

argument that does not address the Court's question regarding the

"purpose" of the 1995 adjustments. 

Finding no clear evidence indicating that the 1995 adjustments

were intended to remedy the inequities created by the Hughes

adjustments, the Court concludes that the 1995 adjustments should

not be considered in the calculation of damages incurred by

Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court shall accept Plaintiffs' proposed

calculation of damages in its entirety.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED directing counsel for Plaintiffs to submit a

proposed judgment, based on the Court's order dated June 7, 2006

(doc. 316) and this order, thirty (30) days from the date of this

order. Defendants must file any objection they have to such

proposed judgment ten (10) days from the date of its filing.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record.

Case 3:95-cv-01313-RCB Document 321 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 4