Jennifer Williams, a seasoned professional in athletic administration, began her tenure at Alabama State University (ASU) in 2016 as the Deputy Director of Intercollegiate Athletics. She was hired at a $95,000 salary and tasked with managing the University’s 18 sports programs, budgeting, and personnel oversight. By 2017, Williams was promoted to Interim Athletic Director, earning $125,000. In 2018, Williams became the permanent Athletic Director with an increased salary of $135,000—higher than her male predecessors, who earned $125,000.
Williams’ background included roles at DePaul University and North Carolina A&T State University, which focused primarily on development and marketing rather than direct athletic administration. She had only two years of direct experience in athletics leadership by the time she assumed the role of Athletic Director at ASU. Despite her relatively limited experience, ASU adjusted its hiring criteria to accommodate her qualifications.
In May 2021, Williams resigned, taking a position at a different organization, and was celebrated by ASU with a press release and a farewell event. After her departure, ASU adjusted its job posting for the Athletic Director position to seek candidates with 7-10 years of leadership experience and, if possible, a doctoral level degree.
Dr. Jason Cable, the eventual hire, held a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration and had over 13 years of progressively senior experience in athletic administration, including a role as Senior Associate Commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference, the conference in which ASU competes. Dr. Cable’s salary was negotiated at $170,000 to reflect his advanced qualifications and extensive experience.
Williams filed suit, bringing claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) alleging wage discrimination based on sex; the Clarke-Figures Equal Pay Act (CFEPA), a state-law equivalent to the EPA; and Title IX, claiming sex-based discrimination in employment terms and conditions. Williams argued that the $35,000 pay disparity between her and Dr. Cable for the same role was discriminatory and unjustified under these laws.
The trial court found in favor of ASU and Williams appealed.
For EPA and CFEPA claims, plaintiffs must show wage disparity between sexes for jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility performed under similar conditions. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the difference in pay is justified by one of four exceptions: (1) seniority systems; (2) merit systems; (3) systems measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) differentials based on factors other than sex.
Williams alleged that ASU paid her less than Dr. Cable solely due to her sex. She argued that the additional qualifications and experience cited for Dr. Cable were either irrelevant or exaggerated.
ASU contended that the pay disparity was based on Dr. Cable’s objectively superior qualifications, including his terminal degree, extensive administrative experience, and unique role in the sports conference’s leadership. These factors constituted a “differential based on factors other than sex,” under the EPA and CFEPA.
The Court found that Williams established a prima facie case of wage disparity, as her successor, a male, was paid more for the same position.
However, the Court determined that ASU met its burden of proving a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the disparity. Dr. Cable’s qualifications—such as his Ph.D., extensive administrative experience, and pivotal role in the conference—justified the higher salary. ASU’s decision to increase the job requirements post-Williams’ resignation further supported this conclusion.
The Court emphasized that ASU’s decision to pay Dr. Cable a higher salary stemmed from legitimate business considerations, including his qualifications and market demands. Williams’ prior salary, while lower, reflected her limited experience in athletics administration and the University’s accommodation of her qualifications at the time of her hiring.
The Court of Appeals also dismissed Williams’ Title IX claim, citing the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. That precedent clarified that Title IX does not provide an implied private right of action for employees alleging sex discrimination in employment. While Title IX allows students to bring claims of sex discrimination against federally funded educational institutions, the Court determined that such protections do not extend to employment disputes.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of ASU on all three claims.
Williams v. Ala. State Univ. (11th Cir. 2024) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32498.
Note: This case serves as an important reminder that schools should have documentation supporting disparity in pay, particularly when increasing the base salary for a position after an employee leaves.