Opinion ID: 4574284
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Smith’s First Lawsuit

Text: Smith was hired to work in FAMU’s law school in 2004. In 2014, she filed a lawsuit against FAMU alleging that the school discriminated against female law professors by paying them less than comparable male law professors. At that time, Smith was an associate law professor with tenure. On July 22, 2015, after a trial, a 1 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). 2 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-3(a). 3 Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01(b) and 760.10. 2 USCA11 Case: 19-12560 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 3 of 18 jury found that, although Smith was paid less than several comparator male law professors, sex was not a motivating factor in the determination of Smith’s original salary when she began in 2004 (“Smith I”). After judgment was entered on the verdict, Smith filed two motions for a new trial and a motion to set aside the judgments. In August 2015, about two weeks after judgment was entered on the verdict, and unbeknownst to Smith at the time, FAMU finalized an internal pay-inequity study which concluded that, on average, female law professors were paid less than male law professors at FAMU Law. Not long after that, in early 2016, FAMU’s law school applied a one-time “salary adjustment” to about one third of the law school faculty. The one-time salary adjustment increased Smith’s salary by roughly $10,000. FAMU also made four other changes to faculty salaries that were applied generally. Learning of the pay-inequity study, Smith then filed a motion to set aside the judgment, arguing that the school’s one-time salary adjustment demonstrated that FAMU had thereby “been caught” committing “fraud on the court regarding [Smith’s] salary inequity case.” The district court denied Smith’s motion to set aside the judgment. Smith appealed the jury verdict in FAMU’s favor and the denials of her post-verdict motions to this Court. Smith v. Fla. Agric. & Mech. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 687 F. App’x. 888 (11th Cir. 2017) (per 3 USCA11 Case: 19-12560 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 4 of 18 curiam). After considering both the 2015 pay-inequity study and FAMU’s 2016 one-time salary adjustment, we affirmed, reasoning that FAMU’s pay-inequity study was based entirely on publicly available data that Professor Smith drew upon in her presentation to the jury. Indeed, she persuaded the jury that she was paid less than comparable male professors. Nor are the remedial measures taken to correct the pay difference a confession that they were the product of gender bias. Smith, 687 F. App’x. at 889.