_____________

No. 95-4234MN

_____________

Sandra Y. Musso, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

University of Minnesota; *

Regents of the University of *

Minnesota, *

*

Appellants. *

_____________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the District

No. 96-1035MN of Minnesota.

_____________

Sandra Y. Musso, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

University of Minnesota; *

Regents of the University of *

Minnesota, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: November 20, 1996

 Filed: January 27, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

In 1980, the University of Minnesota entered into a consent decree

(the Rajender decree) governing sex discrimination claims brought by female

academic employees. Sandra Y. Musso filed suit
-2-

under the decree, contending the University first demoted her and then

refused to renew her contract as Director of Sports Facilities because of

Musso's sex. Later, the district court permitted Musso to add a claim of

retaliatory firing that arose after the Rajender decree had expired. The

University appeals the district court's finding of unlawful retaliation,

and Musso cross-appeals the district court's adverse rulings on her other

claims. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Before Musso arrived on the scene in 1986, the coordinator of the

University's athletic facilities was little more than a maintenance person.

The coordinator answered to the ones who really ran the facilities, the

Directors of Men's Intercollegiate Athletics, Women's Intercollegiate

Athletics, Recreational Sports, and Physical Education. Wanting one person

in charge instead of four, Dr. Frank Wilderson, at that time Vice President

for Student Affairs, signed Musso to a five-year contract as the

University's first Director of Sports Facilities.

Unsurprisingly, the other directors resented this invasion of their

turf. After Dr. Wilderson stepped down at the end of 1988, the other

directors presented his interim replacement, Nicholas Barbatsis, with a

proposal to restore their control over their former domain. Barbatsis

passed the proposal on to then President Nils Hasselmo, who approved it.

By November 1989, many of Musso's duties had disappeared. Once the

supervisor of roughly twenty-five full-time employees, Musso found her

staff reduced to three. Believing herself a victim of sex discrimination,

Musso filed a Rajender claim on December 1, 1989.

Although Musso's contract was to expire August 31, 1991, Musso was

entitled to a performance review in 1990 to assess whether her contract

should be renewed. The review committee, composed of two women and one

man, sought comment from over fifty of Musso's colleagues, as well as from

Musso herself. Because the majority of comment was unfavorable, the

committee recommended against renewing
-3-

Musso's contract. Barbatsis agreed, and notified Musso in April 1990.

Musso filed a second Rajender claim on June 7, 1990, contending her

nonreappointment was because of her sex.

About the time Musso learned her days at the University were

numbered, the University started a routine audit of the Sports Facilities

Department. The auditors, who were at first unaware of Musso's lawsuit,

uncovered information that Musso was working twenty-hour weeks and taking

unauthorized vacation days. Barbatsis involved Musso and her attorney in

his lengthy review of the auditors' findings. When Musso's account of her

time proved unverifiable, Barbatsis gave Musso notice of termination on

February 6, 1991. Although the Rajender decree had expired January 1,

1991, the district court granted Musso's motion to amend her complaint to

include a claim of retaliatory firing.

The district court found that neither the restructuring of the Sports

Facilities Department nor the nonrenewal of Musso's contract was the result

of sex-based discrimination. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

agree with the district court that no one in Musso's position, female or

male, would have withstood the other four directors' power play. We also

agree with the district court that the review committee's recommendation,

and not sex-based animus, prompted Barbatsis to decide against Musso's

reappointment.

Although Musso's retaliation claim arose after the Rajender decree

expired, the district court found Musso was prematurely terminated in

retaliation for asserting claims under the decree. Thus, we must decide

whether the district court should have considered this claim at all. Like

any consent decree, the Rajender decree should be construed as a contract.

See Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1274-75 (8th Cir. 1994). Because

a consent decree "reflects a compromise between hostile litigants," id. at

1275, its scope "`must be discerned within its four corners, and not by

reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of
-4-

the parties to it,'" id. (quoting United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S.

673, 682 (1971)). Here, the decree unambiguously states: "[I]n no event

shall this Decree extend beyond January 1, 1991." In Musso's view, the

decree's expiration date is the contractual equivalent of a statute of

limitations. Thus, she contends her retaliation claim relates back to her

earlier filed claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). We disagree. The decree

created a special mechanism for dealing with sex discrimination claims

involving the University, January 1, 1991 was the bargained-for date on

which that mechanism lapsed, and the district court had no authority under

the decree to consider the merits of Musso's late-filed claim. See Aburime

v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 8 F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

 We affirm the district court's judgment on Musso's claims of

discriminatory demotion and contract nonrenewal. We reverse the district

court's judgment on Musso's retaliation claim and remand with instructions

to dismiss the claim.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.