_____________ 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 decre e (the Rajender decree) governing sex discrimination claims brought by femal e academic employees. Sandra Y. Musso filed suit

### -2-

under the decree, contending the University first demoted her and the n 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 th at arose after the Rajender decree had expired. The Universityappeals the district court's finding of unlawful retaliation, and Musso cross-appea ls 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 th e University's athletic facilities was little more than a maintenance person

. The coordinator answered to the ones who really ran the facilities, th e Dir ectors of Men's Intercollegiate Athletics, Women's Intercollegiat e Athletics, Recreational Sports, and Physical Education. Wanting one perso n in charge instead of four, Dr. Frank Wilderson, at that time Vice Presiden t fo r Student Affairs, signed Musso to a five-year contract as th e University's first Director of Sports Facilities. Unsurpris ingly, the other directors resented this invasion of their turf. Af ter Dr. Wilderson stepped down at the end of 1988, the othe r directors presented his interim replacement, Nicholas Barbatsis, with a proposal to restore their control over their former domain. Barbatsi s passed the proposal on to then President Nils Hasselmo, who approved it. By Novemb er 1989, many of Musso's duties had disappeared. Once th e supe rvisor of roughly twenty-five full-time employees, Musso found he r staff reduced to three. Believing herself a vic tim of sex discrimination, Musso filed a Rajender claim on December 1, 1989.
Although Musso's contract was to expire August 31, 1991, Musso wa s entitled to a performance review in 1990 to assess whether her contrac t should be renewed. The review committee, composed of two women and on e man, sought comment from over fifty of Musso's c olleagues, as well as from Muss o herself. Because the majority of comment was unfavorable, th e committee recommended against renewing

### -3-

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

. Musso fil ed a second Rajender claim on June 7, 1990, contending he r nonreappointment was because of her sex.

About the time Musso learned her days at the University wer e numbered, the Univers ity started a routine audit of the Sports Facilities Department. The auditors, who were at first unaware of Musso's lawsuit, uncovered informationthat Musso was working twenty-hour weeks and taking unauthorized vacationdays. Barbatsis involved Musso and her attorney in his lengthy review of the auditors' findings. W hen Musso's account of her time p roved unverifiable, Barbatsis gave Musso notice of termination o n Febru ary6, 1991. Although the Rajender decree had expired January 1 , 1991, the district co urt 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 resul t of sex -based discrimination. Having carefully reviewed the record, w e agree with the district court that no one in Musso's position, female or male, would have with stood the other four directors' power play. We also agree with the distri ct court that the review committee's recommendation, and no t sex-based animus, prompted Barbatsis to decide against Musso' s reappointment.

Al though Musso's retaliation claim arose after the Rajender decre e expire d, the district court found Musso was prematurely terminated i n retaliation for asserting claims under the decree. Thus, we must decide whether the district court should have considere d this claim at all. Like any consent decree, the Rajender decree should b e 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 b y 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)). He re, the decree unambiguously states: "[I]n no event shall thi s Decree extend beyond January 1, 1991." In Musso's view, th e decree's expiration date is the contractual equivalent of a statute o f limitations. Thus, she contends her retaliationclaim relates back to her earlier filed claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). We disagree. The decre e create d a special mechanism for dealing with sex discrimination claim s inv olving the University, January 1, 1991 was the bargained-for date o n which that mechanism lapsed, and the district co urt had no authority under the decree to consider the merits of Musso's late-filed claim. See Aburim e v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. , 8 F.3d 626, 629 (8t h Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

We affirm the district court's judgment on Musso's claims o f discriminatory demoti on and contract nonrenewal. We reverse the district court's judgment on Musso's retaliation claim an d remand with instructions to dismiss the claim.

A true copy.

Attest:

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