IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

NEWMAN UNIVERSITY,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2404 KHV COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide

appropriate relief to Marla Sexson who was adversely affected by such practices. The Commission

alleges that Newman University refused to promote Marla Sexson on the basis of her sex, and then

retaliated against Sexson when she made a protected complaint of discrimination.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”) and

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Newman University (the “Employer”), has continuously been a Kansas corporation doing business in the State of Kansas and the City of Wichita, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Marla Sexson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. From approximately August through October 2004, Defendant Employer engaged in the following unlawful employment practices at its Wichita, Kansas campus, in violation of Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3):
(a) Newman University refused to promote Marla Sexson to an open position for which she was qualified, on the basis of her sex; and

(b) Newman University retaliated against Marla Sexson for complaining about employment discrimination and for filing a charge of discrimination with the Commission.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Marla Sexson of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above was done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Marl Sexson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sex discrimination in promotions, retaliation, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carryout policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for women, and that eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Marla Sexson, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief

necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and promotion of Marla Sexson.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Marla Sexson, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including job search and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Marla Sexson by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Marla Sexson punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this complaint. DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL
The Commission designates Kansas City, Kansas as the place where this case should be tried.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

/s/ Robert G. Johnson ROBERT G. JOHNSON Regional Attorney

/s/ Donna L. Harper DONNA L. HARPER Supervisory Trial Attorney U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office 1222 Spruce St., Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 539-7914 FAX: (314) 539-7895 e-mail: robert.johnson@eeoc.gov
donna.harper@eeoc.gov

/s/ Andrea G. Baran

ANDREA G. BARAN

MO #46520

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Kansas City Area Office

400 State Avenue, Suite 905

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-5848

FAX: (913) 551-6957

e-mail: andrea.baran@eeoc.gov

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff and
MARLA SEXSON,
Plaintiff/Intervenor
VS.

Case No. :05-2404-KHV

NEWMAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Maria Sexson ("Sexson"), by her undersigned counsel, and for her Complaint against the Defendant alleges as follows:
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This matter alleges gender discrimination and retaliation in employment and is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3). The Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’ s state law claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1367. The Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit. 2. Venue is proper in this Court since all actions giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in this district and the Plaintiff and Defendant reside in the district.
Parties

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 2 of 18
3. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is the federal agency authorized by federal law to enforce Title VII.
4. Defendant Newman University ("Newman") is an educational institution which has continuously been doing business in the State of Kansas and the City of Wichita, Kansas, and has continuously had at least 15 employees during all times relevant to this litigation. The President of Newman is Aidan O. Dunleavy ("Dunleavy") who has been the President of Newman at all times relevant to this litigation.
5. Sexson is a female and was an administration employee at Newman for approximately 12 years and held various administrative positions. In 2004 she was the Dean of Admissions with management responsibility for financial aid as well.
Background Facts 6. In the late spring or early summer of 2004, Kim Miller Jacobs ("Miller") resigned from Newman as the Vice President for Enrollment ("VPEM"). Sexson had reported to Miller. Miller resigned her position because she was upset that Newman had denied a promotion to Tara Morrow to the position of Dean of Students on the basis of her gender in the spring of 2004. After Morrow was denied a second position at Newman and the school terminated her employment, she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Charge of Discrimination that Morrow filed on or about September 23, 2004. Lee Cooper, the Provost for Newman had told Miller that Dunleavy intended to fill the Dean of Students position with a male Catholic in his mid-40’s. 7. Under Newman’ s natural progression policy, Sexson was entitled to be given first

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 3 of 18
consideration for promotion to the position of Vice President for Enrollment Management. Instead, Sexson was informed by Newman administrative personnel that President Dunleavy intended to hire a male for the position of VPEM. Nonetheless, Sexson applied for the position and discussed her interest with Dunleavy. Sexson was qualified for the position of VPEM.
8. Newman refused to promote Sexson to the position of VPEM and hired a male as the purported interim VPEM. Sexson complained to Dunleavy about his decision to hire a male for the VPEM position and complained to him that she was denied the position because of her gender.
9. Sexson filed a charge of discrimination against Newman based upon its unlawful refusal to promote her based upon her gender. See Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Charge of Discrimination that Sexson filed with the EEOC on or about September 22, 2004.
10. Within a few weeks of filing her Charge of Discrimination, Dunleavy informed Sexson that he determined that her job duties would be substantially modified, effectively stripping her of her position of Dean of Admissions. Shortly thereafter, Sexson separated from employment with Newman.
11. Sexson then filed an amended Charge of Discrimination against Newman alleging that she was the victim of retaliation for having complained about unlawful discrimination. See Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the amended charge that Sexson filed on or about November 1, 2004.
12. After a several month long investigation into Sexson’s charges of discrimination and retaliation, the EEOC issued a Determination in which it found that there was cause to believe

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 4 of 18
that Newman had discriminated against Sexson based upon her gender and also had retaliated against her when she complained about unlawful discrimination. See Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Determination concerning Sexson’s charges of discrimination and retaliation. In addition, the EEOC issued a Determination concerning Morrow’s charge of discrimination and found that there was cause to believe that she had been the victim of gender discrimination. See Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Determination concerning Morrow.
13. After conciliation efforts between Newman and Sexson failed, the EEOC issued a notice of failure, Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herein, and also issued a Notice of Right to Sue Letter to Sexson, dated August 18, 2005, exhibit G attached hereto and incorporated herein.
14. Acting through President, Dunleavy, Newman has a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in hiring and promotion decisions for senior administration and other positions at Newman. Dunleavy has reorganized several administrative departments with the purpose and effect that women were moved out of their positions and replaced by men.
15. Upon becoming President of Newman, Dunleavy eliminated the position of Director Human Resources for the purpose of being able to take control of all hiring decisions. Dunleavy either makes or is actively involved in virtually all hiring decisions at Newman.
16. During 2003 and 2004, Dunleavy made disparaging comments about pregnant women, including Sexson, and also made disparaging comments about women he did not believe were attractive enough to represent Newman. Dunleavy criticized Sexson for wanting to send a newly married Newman employee to Kansas City to work as recruiter because she could get

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 5 of 18
pregnant. Dunleavy referred to another female employee at Newman as a good argument for Planned Parenthood after the woman became pregnant with her second child. Both Morrow and Sexson were on maternity leave in the spring of 2004.
17. Dunleavy told Provost Cooper that he wanted to hire a male Catholic in his mid-40’s for the position of Dean of Students. He also told Father Orr that he was glad that Miller resigned because he could fill the VPEM position with a man.
18. Newman has had a disproportionate number of women leave the school since Dunleavy became president and it has hired a disproportionate number of men into senior administration positions.
First Claim for Relief: Discrimination 19. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if set forth fully here. 20. Newman discriminated against Sexson in violation of Title VII, causing her economic damages and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Newman’s actions were intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of Sexson’s federal rights. Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Second Claim for Relief: Retaliation 21. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 above as if set forth fully here. 22. Newman retaliated against Sexson for engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII, causing her economic damages and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Newman’s actions were intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of Sexson’s federal rights.

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 6 of 18
Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Third Claim for Relief: Constructive Discharge 23. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if set forth fully here. 24. Newman’s actions in discriminating and retaliating against Sexson resulted in her constructive discharge from Newman in violation of Title VII, causing her economic damages and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Newman’s actions were intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of Sexson’s federal rights. Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief: Outrage and Invasion of Privacy 25. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 above as if set forth fully here. 26. After Sexson left Newman, the school kept Sexson’ s email account open for the purpose of obtaining personal and confidential information sent to her email address by persons who did not know she had left or who mistakenly sent her email at her Newman email address. 27. Dunleavy instructed the school to forward Sexson’s email to him. Dunleavy read several personal emails sent to Sexson at her Newman email address. Newman has refused to turn over to Sexson all personal emails that were sent to her old Newman email address. 28. On information and belief, Sexson alleges that Newman also kept open the email accounts of Morrow and Brad Sexson, a former Newman employee and Sexson’s husband, all for the purpose of obtaining confidential and personal information. 29. Newman’s actions have caused Sexson extreme emotional distress and are

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 7 of 18
outrageous, being beyond the bounds of civil society. Newman has violated Sexson’s privacy rights by keeping her account open and by allowing Dunleavy to read personal and confidential emails sent to Sexson. Newman’s practice of keeping Sexson’s email account open for nearly a year after her departure lacks any legitimate business justification.
30. Newman’s actions have caused Sexson extreme emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Demand for Jury Trial Sexson requests a jury trial on all matters triable to a jury.
Designation of Place of Trial Sexson designates Kansas City, Kansas, as the place of trial.
s/Michael M. Shultz Michael M. Shultz Ks. Bar No. 18093 Law Firm of Michael M. Shultz 7270 West 98th Terrace, Suite 220 913-385-9955 phone 913-385-9977 facsimile Shultz@shultzlawfirm corn

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 8 of 18
Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that he served the foregoing on all counsel of record on October 25, 2005, by filing same with the court’s electronic case filing/case management system which will give notice to: Robert Johnson robert.j ohnson@eeoc.gov Donna Harper donna, harper@eeoc, gov Andrea Barren andrea.baran@eeoc.gov Stanley Davis sddavis@shb.com Kristen Aggeler Page kpage@shb.com
s/Michael M. Shultz

CHARGE #JUMBER Page 9 of t8

WHO OtSCRI~MINATED AGAINST NAME

STR EE ADD9 ESS

C|TY

ZIP CO DE

TEL~HONE NUMBER (ln~ct~ AI~,,~ ~d~)

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION 8ASEO ON fC’h~R

~i~f~

~RACE ~ C:OLO~ ~ AGE

~ RELtG,ON ~ NAT, ON~L May 2004

~

~

~ CONTINUING ACTION

t was employed at Newman Un~versily from July 7, 1997, thro~gh June 4, 2004. In May of 2004.
~ was told that my lob as Director of Transition Programs would be eJiminatd and the

the+ necessary ~lualifications. I ~.~as [old by a unive~tV official that the President of the ur~ivorsilv (A~dan O+ Dun[eavy) ~anted to h#e a male for the position. hired a male for the Dean o~ Students :)os[tion. Wri~er~ notes from :he provost state that the

campus, I was told that this was done ~o k~p me from applying. A male was hired for the

AGE N CY

CHARGE NUMBER
Page 10 of 18

Uarta Sexson

STR~ ADDRESS

CIr. S’~ArE AND ZIP CODE

654 N. Rock Road Bel~e Pla#le, KS 67013

NAK4ED iS THE EMPLOYER ~BOR ORGANIZATION. ~HO DIS.__.....CRIMINA FED AGAINST ME t’tf n~ore that~ one flst

NAME Newman University
gTRE~ AODnESS

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. ~’I£MBEHS 200+
C|TYo 9TATE AND ZIP

3100 McCormick Ave° Wichita KS 67213

DA]’~ OF BIRTH 3f21167

|
| TELEPHONE

J

316- 942~4291

COUN-P{

NAME

A~tn: #~ark Dresseihaus

~1 [ELEPHONE NUMBER ~q~ctudcAfea

CITY, STATE AND ZiP CODE

Ul

I am the Dean of Admissiens a~ Newman University~ have ,worked at Nee’man ~or 12 years and
applied lot #~ position of Vice President of Enrollment Maria I was told by a person who heard ff directly that the President ~]anned to hire a man lot the I was ~II qualified for the position and this was a natural promotion for me since Ne~,rr~an has a 0olicv of promotin9 from within. I sewed as a de facto acting VP of En~llment Management for 2 month~. Hov~ever, the President a~nounced that he did n~ find anyone he felt was qualified in the selection group and announced that he would bring in a male consultant to hold the position until ~t could be filte& This male "consultant" was a member of the selection pool and says that
President has slated to me that I should not fill a 13osition for the Univers ty with a

~eBcy, ~: a n~ ......... ~ SUBSCRIBED AND SV~ORN TO BEFORE ~.4~ TH!S DAT~E

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION ~:o,t,pk~tir,!] ~2:05-cv-O2404-KHV-JPO Document 9

EEOC

31 O0 McCurmicl< Avenue, ’¢~chita KS 67213
2004 CONTI NUtNG ACT~OP4
Afler I nomplained to the President o[ [he University about g~nder d~scrimination at the school and in mV application for the position o[ Vice Presider~ of Enrolb~e[~t Management. ~he Pre~;ident began reorganizing the area where I work (Dean ot Ad;~q~ssions} and ~oo~ a~.a/aV ~a~V of my re:,~po~ssil~itities and qreatlv reduced the number of* emptos~ees who report tn me. As a result, I ~as const~-uc[ively discharged, Thes~ actions w,(~r(~, tal<:{sn against ~t-~e based upon my 9~ender and in r~.-taliation for m°~/ engaging in protected activity dnder Title VII

Ka~sas City Area Office ’.:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005

Clmrgc No. 281-2004-07761

Maria Sexson 654 N. Rock Road Bdte Plain, KS 670/3

Charging Party

3100 McCom~Jck Avenue Wichita. KS (+7213

Re~pondcnt I) ETERM |NAT|ON

I issue the |b[lowing tic{ecru +~alion on the merits of this charge

Re.~l~onde.qt is an employer., withh~ [lae meaning of T[llc Vii of the Civil Rights Act of f 964. as amended_ 42 U.S.C. 2000c. ct seq. DefErral. timeliness, m~d nit other requirements fbr cc,’,erage have been tact.
Charging Par{y altcges Responden{ thited ~o prolllof¢ her tO the position of Vice P~’esidenl ol+ E~woitmcnt Maa~agcmct~l i t~ September 2004 based o~ I~er gender~ tEma]c. Charging Par~y also alleges she was demoted in fetal i alio n lbr her complah~t o f gender discri minatio~ artd she was lbrccd to resign due to the intolerable workMg conditions.

lZespoJade]~{, con.tends (hat Clmrging Pm~y was not prom{~{ed to the position of Vice President oF

E.m’olhtaet~{ Martagcmet+tJ {"%’PEM"L el{her in an it~Jerim s{atus or permanent statt~s, because she

.. , ~ - + + ’ :~ ....... ~ " - : "

Re~l:,onden/contends thal Chat+gh~g Party

’was not demoted because the poshion she hdd prior to her complaint was file same posi6on she

held aJter her UOml)laia~t.

In Aug,]s* 2004. KeSl)o+~dcn{ sought candidatcs to fit] the job o* Vice I’resident of Et~ro~h~ent Managcmc,?~ while Charging Party worked as imerhn VPI£M. C]~arging Par{y applied. RCSl3ot?dcnt decided not w fi;I Vine VPEM posidon and crcated a [~ew interhn position 1hat i{ d~lc~[ wid~ a malc VPEM app~ca.a~i. Evidence establishes that Resl;o~tde~,{ decided [o hire a male as i{s

because o[ ]te,r ucnder in viotation of’l’ille

()n (}ctol,e:r ::0o 2001, Chargh~g Party l][cd a second charge o[discrin~hiatic:,n ,<vitli the C:ommission allegi~g gender discl+itnhmdor~, retaliation aud con~t~mtive discharge The im es~iga{ion revealed ~l~as Res?onden~ reduced (’lmrging Party’s dudes m-~d .he c,~ml~lamcd that Rcspor~dcnt s decision not 1,)hire her Jor the VPEM position was gendcr

,:fl Tide

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 13 of 18 lo Lhc claim of col~str~lctive di ~clm~c~ however. ~he (’.ommiss~on ~s ramble to co~cludc that p~m [Snding thN them is reason [o believe tha~ viotation:; lmvc occurred, the (]omm]ssio~ attempts [.o e/imhmte the a[lcgcd tm]awN1 practices by ~nfom~al mcthods of coaci/h~fion.
If lh¢ Respondent declines lo discuss se(tlcmcnt or whe~, for any other reasons, a sett[emm~[ acceptable to the office Dirccto~ is not obtained, the Director wU[ in/b[m the pa~ies and advise A Conmfissio~ rcprcsca;tative wilt contact each party in Lhe near fuhltc t:o begin

Kansas (~ A:rea ()i~ee ........ 205-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Flied ]012512005
FAX

\Vichi{a, KS 67209 3100 McCormick Avemte

Chargh:]g Party lent

D ETERI~’IINAT10 N
I iss:t~e the Ii~]K~wing delermi~tation o~ ,he merits of this clmrge.
R~.~sp~mde.n~ ~s an c.mplo,,.c.~ ~,ttbm tl~a meaning o[’Ti{|c VII of the Ci,~il Riflers Act of ~ 964 as amce~ded 42 lJ.S.(. =000c. c.l scq, Def~-:rral. {ime]iness. and all c~her reqmeemen~s tbr coverage have been met.
Charg~:~g Part? alleges she was discharged by Respondent because her job was climi]m~cd_ and Rcs[~mdem t~|Hed ~o rehire her liar citl~er oftl’~e ~ew[y created }obs t’~r which she was qua!i~cdo due ~o her gender, t?male.
Resp{mdcrll agrees dmt Chm’gh~( Party’s job was clhmaated. Isttt asserls that Chargi~g Parly wa:q enc~uragcd to apply for the two ~ex,~’.iobs which were being developed and fi~iled {o do so ~i~erefo.rc she was not hired.
May 20(}4. Charging Party was i~!~:~rmed ~hat her job ~f I )irector of St~dct:~ Li/:~/l’nmSilion wa~ bci n e e~ ~ m ~atod al?d her .} o b dtll~ es w~~ LIt d bc i nco lpo ra{ed i n {o two new p os i{l o ns, D irec ~ or
(~ampus Activities and Dean of Stude~]ts. e Fl~eclive July 1. 2004. The l)irector o~" C’mnpus Act ivil~es posilion conlains the same }oh description as (~hargia~g Party’s Director of Student
ca~u p~t:a. Respondent selected a .male for {he l)icemor o [ Cm~pus Activities pos~tior~ at~d cvidca]ce reveals H~a{ 1he male sctec{cc does a~o{ ]ire on campus.
]’ltc Dean of S(~Ments positi~m was also ~Lvailab~e al~cr Charging Par{),-s posit[ot~ was allegedly
position because she learned Rcsi~ondcnt was ..~cd,l% a marc [~.}c (he posi~Mn. Tlne successti~]

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005 Page 15 of 18
altd Respondent I:a[lcd io l’e[lJlC her based orl her gender, female, in violatioJ~ oCTit|e V|I l, pon I]l~di~g flint lhere is reason to believe Lltat v~olations, have occm-red~ |lm Commission n|[empts [o c]imit~ate 1he a [e;qed unlaw~bl practices by_ i~fom~al mc~hods oFconciJiadoi;~. lh~ cl]~c_ d~c Commissio]a now invites the parties to joi~ with it iu rcacl~h~g a iktst rcso][aion
Procedural Regulations. Respondent declines ~o disc~ss settlement or when, [br a~v other reason~ a settlement
Ihe office l)irccL~}r is not oblah~d, tlkc Director will ~nfbrm the barhc.s and ,td~ tsc
rcl3rcsc~La[ivc will coniac~ each party in the ~]c[~ fi~im’e to begin conciliatiom

::05-cv-02404-KHV-J PO ....Document 9 Filed 10/25/2005
Charge N:o, 28 ! =2004,0776
3 ! 00 McC0miick AVenue WiChitai EEOC has detcrmincd lhat effo~ls to conciliate lhi.~ charge as required by Sectio~ 706(b} of Title VH of the Civi| Rights Act of 1964. as amended, have been unstmcessfu[. This ~et{cr constitutes the no,tee required by ~501.25 of {he Commission’s Regulations, which provides tha{ the Commission shall notify a Respondent m writing when it detenn[nes lha~ fi~rd~er coa~ciliation cf’~’hrts would be ~)~i[e or nonoproductive. No flnther effi.:~rts ~{) coa~cJ[iatc this case ,,rill be made by EEOC. Accordingly. we are a~ ~his dine lqoqtviagrd: mx;~lhe c,tse to th::e"L*egal Utfit whhin the St. Lo~is Districl Of~ce for a detem~ination i~garding EEOC inida~ed Iidgadom
S~ncerdy,
Lynn Brtmcr, District Direclor [

Case .205-cv-02404-~K;H:~V, |C~~~TO~9~ 0/21 5/2005 Page 17 of 18

Belie Pla:inei KS 67013

408 State Avenue

C©NFIDENTI,4L (29 CER .{ f60t,/(a J)

EEOC Charge No

EEOC Represen~atwe

281-2084-57761

Tezzie S. Wells, i~vestigator

[~le 3hone No,
(913| 551-5699

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

This Notice concludes the EEOC’s processing of the above-numbered charge, The EEOC found reasonaMe cause to believe that violations ~f the statute(s} occurred with respect to some or all of [he ma~ters alleged in the charge b[~t could ~ot obtain a settlement with lhe Respondent that would provide relief for you, ~n addition. ~he EEOC has decided that is will net bring suit against the Res ponden( at this time based on this charge and will close i~.s file in this case. This does not mea~ that the EEOC is certify!ha that the Respondent is in comgliance with the law, or tha~ ~[he EEOC wil~ not sue the Respondent later or intewene later in ~our lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf,

- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS
(See t~e add~tioqa~ ~nforma~o~ ~ttached ~o fhLs

this charge in federal or state cou~L Your awsu ! must be filed WiTH~N 90 D YS of your receipt of this Notice: oryour righ~ to sue based on 1his charge w l be lost (The time ~im ~ for f ing suit based on a sta~e claim may be different.)

Equa~ Pay Ac~ (E.PA}: EPA su ~s must be fed in federal or sta~e coudw t ~n 2 years (3 years forw[llful violations} of~he a~eged

EPA underpayment. This mean s that backpay due for any violatio ns that occu fred mere the

~(

before you

file suit ma~, not be collectible.

If you file suit, based or~ this ct~arqe, please send a copy of your court complain[ to this of£ce.

On behalf o[ ~he Commission

NEWMAN UNIVERS|TY 3100 ~cCor~ick Ave. ~ct~ita, KS 67213

Lynn Y, Briner, 13irector

~Date Me~le~J

Case 2:05-cv-02404-N~d~o~u~~ FEi~~5/2005 Page 18 of 18
UNDER THE L~WS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC

PRIVATE SUiT RIGHTS -- Tit]e Vll of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans w~th Disabiiities Act (ADA), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):
n order to pursue this mailer further, you m~st fire a lawsuit against the respondent(s) r~amed in the charge within da3,#, of the date you receive this Notice. Theretore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-day period ~s over, your righ~ to sue based on the charge refer~ed ~.o i~ this No(ice will be lost. If you in~end to consult a~ attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of [his Notice, and i~s en~eloue, and te~ him or ~er ~he date you received Jr. Furthermore in order ~o avoid a~y question that you did not act i~ a timely manner, ~t ~s prudent that your suit be tiled within 98 days of the date this Notice was rr~aifedto you (as ir~dicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of lhe postmark, if
Y[)ur Iawsuit may, be 5to d in U.S. District Cou~ or a State court of competenl jurisdiction- (Usually, the appropriate State coL~r( is t~t~e gener~ civi~ tdal equal.} Whether you file ir~ Federal or Sta~e court is a matter ~or you to decide after ta~k]ng to your a~tomey. Filir~g ~his Notice is not enough, You must file a "complaint" tha~ contains a s/]o~ statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your sui~ may include any matter alleged in the charge or. ~o the exlent ~)ermi~ed by couA decisions, matters like or related lo the mat[era afleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the S~te where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be bro[~.~]~t where relevant employment records are keuL where the employment would have been, or where the reslaondent has its main of[Jceo If you ~ave simple questions° you usual|y can get answers from the office o~ the c~erk at 1he coud where you are bringing suiL but do not expect that office to write your complaint or make legal strategy decisions for yOL~,

PRIVATE SU|~ R~GHTS -~ Equa| Pay Act (EPA):

EPA Suits must be flied in co:ur[ within 2 years (3 years for willful violations} of ~he alleged EPA underpayment: backpay

due for ,. iolations that occurred mere than 2

before you file suit may not be co~ec{iMe, For example,

if yo~ were ~de~paid under the EPA fo~ work performed from 7/1/00 to 12,~1/00, you should file suit

-- not

1211/02 -- in order to recover ~mpaid wa~es due for July 2000. This time limit for firing an EPA SL~it is seoarate from the 90-day fi~in9 pedod under TitJe V]~ ~he ADA or t he ADEA referred [o aboveo Theretore, if you also plan to sue ~nder Tide

VII, Ihe ADA or (he ADEA. in addition ~o suing on the ERA claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of tiffs Notice and within

the 2- or 3-year EPA backpay recoveG~ period.

A~ORNEY REPRESENTAT|ON -- Title VII and the ADA:
If VOL~ c~nno~ afford or have been unable ~o obtain a lawyer ~o represent you, the U,S. District Court having judsdiclion in your case may, in limited ciret~msla[lces, assist you n obtain n9 a awyer Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S, District Court in the form a~d manner it reauires (you should be ~repared to explain in detail your efforts lo retain an atlomey). Requests should be made w,e]l before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above, because suet requests do no~ relieve you of the requirement ~o bring suit witl][~ 90 days,

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE ~- All Statutes:
You may contact the EEOC r~presentative shown on your Notice if you need help i~ finding a lawyer or if yo~ have any questions abou~ your legal rights, including advice on wl~ich U.S DistridCourt can hear your case, lf,lou need to inspec~ or obtain a co py of information in EEOC’s ~i~e on the charge, please re£uest it promptly i[’~ writing and provide your charge number {as shaw~ on your Notice), While EEOC destroys charge flies aRer a certain ~ime, eli charge files are kept for at least 6 mo~]~,hs after our last action on the case. Therefore if you f~e suit and want to review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months ~f this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 90 days, )

YOU FILE SUIT, PL.EASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMP&AINT TO T~fs OFFICE,

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff and
MARLA SEXSON,
Plaintiff/Intervenor
VS.

Case No. :05-2404-KHV

NEWMAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Maria Sexson ("Sexson"), by her undersigned counsel, and for her First Amended Complaint against the Defendant alleges as follows:
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This matter alleges gender discrimination and retaliation in employment and is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3). The Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’ s state law claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1367. The Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit. 2. Venue is proper in this Court since all actions giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in this district and the Plaintiff and Defendant reside in the district.
Parties

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 2 of 19
3. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is the federal agency authorized by federal law to enforce Title VII.
4. Defendant Newman University ("Newman") is an educational institution which has continuously been doing business in the State of Kansas and the City of Wichita, Kansas, and has continuously had at least 15 employees during all times relevant to this litigation. The President of Newman is Aidan O. Dunleavy ("Dunleavy") who has been the President of Newman at all times relevant to this litigation.
5. Sexson is a female and was an administration employee at Newman for approximately 12 years and held various administrative positions. In 2004 she was the Dean of Admissions with management responsibility for financial aid as well.
Background Facts 6. In the late spring or early summer of 2004, Kim Miller Jacobs ("Miller") resigned from Newman as the Vice President for Enrollment ("VPEM"). Sexson had reported to Miller. Miller resigned her position because she was upset that Newman had denied a promotion to Tara Morrow to the position of Dean of Students on the basis of her gender in the spring of 2004. After Morrow was denied a second position at Newman and the school terminated her employment, she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Charge of Discrimination that Morrow filed on or about September 23, 2004. Lee Cooper, the Provost for Newman had told Miller that Dunleavy intended to fill the Dean of Students position with a male Catholic in his mid-40’s. 7. Under Newman’ s natural progression policy, Sexson was entitled to be given first

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 3 of 19
consideration for promotion to the position of Vice President for Enrollment Management. Instead, Sexson was informed by Newman administrative personnel that President Dunleavy intended to hire a male for the position of VPEM. Nonetheless, Sexson applied for the position and discussed her interest with Dunleavy. Sexson was qualified for the position of VPEM.
8. Newman refused to promote Sexson to the position of VPEM and hired a male as the purported interim VPEM. Sexson complained to Dunleavy about his decision to hire a male for the VPEM position and complained to him that she was denied the position because of her gender.
9. Sexson filed a charge of discrimination against Newman based upon its unlawful refusal to promote her based upon her gender. See Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Charge of Discrimination that Sexson filed with the EEOC on or about September 22, 2004.
10. Within a few weeks of filing her Charge of Discrimination, Dunleavy informed Sexson that he determined that her j ob duties would be substantially modified, effectively stripping her of her position of Dean of Admissions. Shortly thereafter, Sexson separated from employment with Newman.
11. Sexson then filed an amended Charge of Discrimination against Newman alleging that she was the victim of retaliation for having complained about unlawful discrimination. See Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the amended charge that Sexson filed on or about November 1, 2004.
12. After a several month long investigation into Sexson’s charges of discrimination and retaliation, the EEOC issued a Determination in which it found that there was cause to believe

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 4 of 19
that Newman had discriminated against Sexson based upon her gender and also had retaliated against her when she complained about unlawful discrimination. See Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Determination concerning Sexson’s charges of discrimination and retaliation. In addition, the EEOC issued a Determination concerning Morrow’s charge of discrimination and found that there was cause to believe that she had been the victim of gender discrimination. See Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein which is a true and accurate copy of the Determination concerning Morrow.
13. After conciliation efforts between Newman and Sexson failed, the EEOC issued a notice of failure, Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herein, and also issued a Notice of Right to Sue Letter to Sexson, dated August 18, 2005, exhibit G attached hereto and incorporated herein.
14. Acting through President, Dunleavy, Newman has a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in hiring and promotion decisions for senior administration and other positions at Newman. Dunleavy has reorganized several administrative departments with the purpose and effect that women were moved out of their positions and replaced by men.
15. Upon becoming President of Newman, Dunleavy eliminated the position of Director Human Resources for the purpose of being able to take control of all hiring decisions. Dunleavy either makes or is actively involved in virtually all hiring decisions at Newman.
16. During 2003 and 2004, Dunleavy made disparaging comments about pregnant women, including Sexson, and also made disparaging comments about women he did not believe were attractive enough to represent Newman. Dunleavy criticized Sexson for wanting to send a newly married Newman employee to Kansas City to work as recruiter because she could get

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 5 of 19
pregnant. Dunleavy referred to another female employee at Newman as a good argument for Planned Parenthood after the woman became pregnant with her second child. Both Morrow and Sexson were on maternity leave in the spring of 2004.
17. Dunleavy told Provost Cooper that he wanted to hire a male Catholic in his mid-40’s for the position of Dean of Students. He also told Father Orr that he was glad that Miller resigned because he could fill the VPEM position with a man.
18. Newman has had a disproportionate number of women leave the school since Dunleavy became president and it has hired a disproportionate number of men into senior administration positions.
First Claim for Relief: Discrimination 19. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if set forth fully here. 20. Newman discriminated against Sexson in violation of Title VII, causing her economic damages and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Newman’s actions were intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of Sexson’s federal rights. Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Second Claim for Relief: Retaliation 21. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 above as if set forth fully here. 22. Newman retaliated against Sexson for engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII, causing her economic damages and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Newman’s actions were intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of Sexson’s federal rights.

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 6 of 19
Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Third Claim for Relief: Constructive Discharge 23. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if set forth fully here. 24. Newman’s actions in discriminating and retaliating against Sexson resulted in her constructive discharge from Newman in violation of Title VII, causing her economic damages and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Newman’s actions were intentional, malicious and in reckless disregard of Sexson’s federal rights. Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.
Fourth Claim for Relief: Hostile Work Environment 25. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 above as if set forth fully here. 26. Sexson was subjected to a hostile work environment in which women were degraded, humiliated and embarrassed based upon their gender. The pattern and practice of gender based discrimination at Newman created an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment that affected the terms and conditions of Sexson’s employment. 27. Newman took official action in restructuring Sexson’s job, which was the equivalent of a demotion, all based upon her gender. As a result of Newman’s wrongful acts, Sexson was constructively discharged. As a result of Newman’s actions, Sexson suffered emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, as well as economic damage. Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 7 of 19
Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief: Outrage and Invasion of Privacy 28. Sexson incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above as if set forth fully here. 29. After Sexson left Newman, the school kept Sexson’ s email account open for the purpose of obtaining personal and confidential information sent to her email address by persons who did not know she had left or who mistakenly sent her email at her Newman email address. 30. Dunleavy instructed the school to forward Sexson’s email to him. Dunleavy read several personal emails sent to Sexson at her Newman email address. Newman has refused to turn over to Sexson all personal emails that were sent to her old Newman email address. 31. On information and belief, Sexson alleges that Newman also kept open the email accounts of Morrow and Brad Sexson, a former Newman employee and Sexson’s husband, all for the purpose of obtaining confidential and personal information. 32. Newman’s actions have caused Sexson extreme emotional distress and are outrageous, being beyond the bounds of civil society. Newman has violated Sexson’ s privacy rights by keeping her account open and by allowing Dunleavy to read personal and confidential emails sent to Sexson. Newman’s practice of keeping Sexson’s email account open for nearly a year after her departure lacks any legitimate business justification. 33. Newman’s actions have caused Sexson extreme emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. Wherefore, Sexson prays that the court award her damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees and such other legal and equitable relief as the court determines just.

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 8 of 19
Demand for Jnry Trial Sexson requests a jury trial on all matters triable to a jury.
Designation of Place of Trial Sexson designates Kansas City, Kansas, as the place of trial.
s/Michael M. Shultz Michael M. Shultz Ks. Bar No. 18093 Law Firm of Michael M. Shultz 7270 West 98th Terrace, Suite 220 913-385-9955 phone 913-385-9977 facsimile Shultz@shultzlawfirm.com

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 9 of 19
Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that he served the foregoing on all counsel of record on October 26, 2005, by filing same with the court’s electronic case filing/case management system which will give notice to: Robert Johnson robert.j ohnson@eeoc.gov Donna Harper donna, harper@eeoc, gov Andrea Barren andrea.baran@eeoc.gov Stanley Davis sddavis@shb.com Kristen Aggeler Page kpage@shb.com
s/Michael M. Shultz

CHARGE #JUMBER Page 10 of t9

WHO OtSCRI~MINATED AGAINST NAME

STR EE ADD9 ESS

C|TY

ZIP CO DE

TEL~HONE NUMBER (ln~ct~ AI~,,~ ~d~)

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION 8ASEO ON fC’h~R ~i~f~

~RACE ~ C:OLO~

~ AGE

~ RELtG,ON ~ NAT, ON~L May 2004

~

~

~ CONTINUING ACTION

t was employed at Newman Un~versily from July 7, 1997, thro~gh June 4, 2004. In May of 2004.
~ was told that my lob as Director of Transition Programs would be eJiminatd and the

the+ necessary ~lualifications. I ~.~as [old by a unive~tV official that the President of the ur~ivorsilv (A~dan O+ Dun[eavy) ~anted to h#e a male for the position.
hired a male for the Dean o~ Students :)os[tion. Wri~er~ notes from :he provost state that the

campus, I was told that this was done ~o k~p me from applying. A male was hired for the

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

AGE N CY

CHARGE NUMBER
Page 11 of t9

Uarta Sexson

STR~ ADDRESS

CIr. S’~ArE AND ZIP CODE

654 N. Rock Road Bel~e Pla#le, KS 67013

NAK4ED iS THE EMPLOYER ~BOR ORGANIZATION. ~HO DIS.__.....CRIMINA FED AGAINST ME t’tf n~ore that~ one flst

NAME Newman University
gTRE~ AODnESS

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. ~’I£MBEHS 200+
CITYo 9TATE AND ZIP

3100 McCormick Ave° Wichita KS 67213

DA]’~ OF BIRTH 3f21167

|
| TELEPHONE

J

316- 942~4291

COUN-P{

NAME

A~tn: #~ark Dresseihaus

~1 [ELEPHONE NUMBER ~q~ctudcAfea

CITY, STATE AND ZiP CODE

Ul

I am the Dean of Admissiens a~ Newman University~ have ,worked at Nee’man ~or 12 years and
applied lot #~ position of Vice President of Enrollment Maria I was told by a person who heard ff directly that the President ~]anned to hire a man lot the I was ~II qualified for the position and this was a natural promotion for me since Ne~,rr~an has a 0olicv of promoting from within. I sewed as a de facto acting VP of En~llment Management for 2 month~. Hov~ever, the President a~nounced that he did n~ find anyone he felt was qualified in the selection group and announced that he would bring in a male consultant to hold the position until ~t could be filte& This male "consultant" was a member of the selection pool and says that
President has slated to me that I should not fill a 13osition for the Univers ty with a

~eBcy, ~: a n~ ......... ~ SUBSCRIBED AND SV~ORN TO BEFORE ~.4~ TH!S DAT~E

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION ~:o,t,pk~tir,!] ~:05-cv-O2404-KHV-JPO Document 13

Fil~ 01~ 5 P

EEOC

31 O0 McCormick< Avenue, ’¢J~chita KS 67213
2004 CONTI NUtNG ACTION
Afler I nomplained to the President o[ [he University about g~nder d~scrimination at the school and in mV application for the position o[ Vice Presidem~ of Enrolb~e[~t Management. ~he Pre~;ident began reorganizing the area where I work [Dean ot Ad;~q~ssions} and ~oo~ a~.a/aV ~a~V of my re:,~po~ssil~itities and qreatlv reduced the number of emptos~ees v~ho repoFt tn me. As a result, I ~as const~-uc[ively discharged, Thes@ actions w, or(~. tal<:@n against ~t-~e based upon my 9~ender and in r~.-taliation for m°y engaging in protected activity dnder Title VII

K~+msas City Area Office 05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed t0/26/2005

Clmrge No. 281-2004-07761

Maria Sexson 654 N. Rock Road Belie Plain, KS 670/3

Charging Pmb’

3100 McCormick Avenue Wichita. K~ 67213

Re~pondcl+~t

I) ETERM |NAT|ON

I issue the tb[lowing dc.{erm +~alion on the merits of this charge

ReS;l+Ondertt is an emptover., within d’m meaning ofT[1]e V|I of" the Civi~ Rights Act of 1904~ as amended_ 42 U+S.C. 20000. et seq. DeFerral. timclhmss, m~d air other requirements fbr co’+erage have been met.
Charg+ng [:>ar{y altcges Respondent thited to promotc her to the position of Vice P~+esidem ol+ E+woitmcnt Ma+~agcmct~t J+~ September 2004 based o~ her gender+ tEma]c. Charging Party also alleges she was demoted in fetal i alio n l:or her compJah~t o f gender discri minatiott m:td she was lbrccd to resign due to the intolerable working condilions.

lZespoJ}det++, con.tends that Chargh+g Pa+ty was not prom~+{ed to the position of Vice President of E.m’olht~et~{ Mmtagcmer~ {~+VPEM"}. el{her in an i~terim status or pennancnt statt~s+ because she w.a.s +~c~t th-e +~’~os+t q’tta:~hJ~..c.d..u..,~~+n"d"~:dat"e I~r th,u position. Re~l:,onde~/co~tends thal (/hat+gh~g Party was not demoted because the position she hdd prior to her comptaint was file same position sl}e

In Aug,]s* 2004. KeSl)o+]den{ sought candidalcs to fit] the iob o* Vice I’resident of Emc,~h~ent Managemc,?t while Charging Party worked as imcr[m VPEM. C]~arging Par{y applied. Rcspot?dcnt decidcd not Io fi~l fl~e VPEM posRion and crcated a ~}ew interhn position 1hat i{ fi~le~[ wi~% a marc VPEM appl~ca.a~i. Evidence establishes that Resl;onde~,{ decided [o hire a male as i¢s
because o[ ]tc,r ucnder in viotation of’l’ille
2001, Chargh~g Party l][cd ~i second charge o[discrimhlatk:,n ,<vitli legi~g get~der discl+imhmtior~, rctaliatton at~cl cons~nmtive discharge The
that Rcspoudc~t s decision not 1,)hire her Jor the VPEM position wa~ gendcr

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 14 of 19 lo Lhc claim of collslructive di ~cha~gc, ]~owever. ~he (:ommiss~on ~s unable to coucludo that
p~m []nding tha~ there is reason [o believe Cha~ violations lmvc occurred, rind auempls to e/imhmte the alleged tmlawflfl practices by ~nfom~al methods of co~ci/~afion.
If lh¢ Respondent dcclincs ~o discuss se[tlmncnt or whe~, for any other reaso~, a sett[emm~t acceptable to the ofI]cc Dirccto~ is not obl.a~ned, the Director writ inlb[m the pa~ties and advise lhem ¢} l]te eel.art cl"llorc.c~l’lor~t a[lorslati :cs a~ a~lablc lo aggrieved pe:sons and file Commission, A Conm~issio~ representative wilt contact each party in Lhe near fulme t:o begin

Kansas (~ A:rea ()i~ee ........
:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document Filed
FAX

\Vichi{a, KS 67209 3100 McCormick Avemte

Chargh:]g Party lent

D ETERI~’IINAT10 N
I iss:t~e the Ii~]K~wing delermi~tation o~ ,he merits of this clmrge.
R~.~sp~mde.n~ ~s an c.mplo,,.c.~ ~,ttbm tl~a meaning o[’Ti{|c VII of the Ci,~il Riflers Act of ~ 964 as amce~ded 42 lJ.S.(. =000c. c.l scq, Def~-:rral. {ime]iness. and all c~her reqmeemen~s tbr coverage have been met.
Charg~:~g Part? alleges she was discharged by Respondent because her job was climi]m~cd_ and Rcs[~mdem t~|Hed ~o rehire her liar citl~er oftl’~e ~ew[y created }obs t’~r which she was qua!i~cdo due ~o her gender, t?male.
Resp{mdcrll agrees dmt Chm’gh~( Party’s job was clhmaated. Isttt asserls that Chargi~g Parly wa:q enc~uragcd to apply for the two ~ex,~’.iobs which were being developed and fi~iled {o do so ~i~erefo.rc she was not hired.
May 20(}4. Charging Party was i~!~:~rmed ~hat her job ~f I )irector of St~dct:~ Li/:~/l’nmSilion wa~ bci n e e~ ~ m ~atod al?d her .} o b dtll~ es w~~ LIt d bc inco lpo ra{ed i n {o two new p os i{l o ns, D irec ~ or
(~ampus Activities and Dean of Stude~]ts. e Fl~eclive July 1. 2004. The l)irector o~" C’mnpus Act ivil~es posilion conlains the same .}oh description as (~hargia~g Party’s Director of Student
ca~u p~t:a. Respondent selected a .male for {he l)icemor o [ Cm~pus Activities pos~tior~ at~d cvidca]ce reveals H~a{ 1he male sctec{cc does a~o{ ]ire on campus.
]’ltc Dean of S(~Ments positi~m was also ~Lvailab~e al~cr Charging Par{),-s posit[ot~ was allegedly
position because she learned Rcsi~ondcnt was ..~cd,l% a marc [~.}c (he posi~Mn. Tlne successti~]

Case 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO Document 13 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 16 of 19 [~he ~v ~dcac~ obtMned du fing ~l~c ~vcsti gaff or~ cs~’ab/Jsh~ s Lha~ Chargi ~g Par ty was d Jschar!zc~ arm Respondent I:a[lcd lo rohirc her based on l~cr gender, tbmale, in violatio]~ ofTit|e V|I
l, pon I]l~di~]g flint lhere is reason to believe Lhat v~olalions, have occurred~ ll~e Commission n~[empts to c]imit~ate 1he a [e;~ed unlaw~M practices by_ Mfom~al mc~hods oFconciJiado~;~. ~h~ cJ;z~c_ he Commissiou now invites the parties to joi~ ,s.id~ ~t i, reachh~g a ~st rcsol~aion
Procedural Regulations.
Responden~ declines ~o discuss settlement or when~ Ibr a~v other reason~ a settlement office l)ireck~>r is not obla~n~d, tlke Director will ~nibrm the t.art~c.s and ad~ tsu
rcl~r~sc~La~ivc ,,~d~l coniac~ each par~y m the uc:~ fi~im’e to begin conc~l[atiom

654 N Rock Road

C~arge N:o, 28 ! =2004,0776

3 ! 00 McC0m~ick AVenue W~ehitai
EEOC has detcrmincd lhat efforts to conciliate lhi.~ charge as required by Sectio~ 706Ib) of Title VIii of the Civi| Rights Act of 1964, as amended, have been unstmcessful. This let{er consfitutt:s the no~[ce required by t601.25 of {he CommJssion=s Regulations, which provides tha{ the CommJss~or~ shall notify a Respondent m wntiag when it detenn[nes lha~ fi~r{t~er coa~ciliation ef’~i~rts would be ~)~i[e or aonoproductive.
No flnxher e:ll’i.:~rts ~o coa~ci[iate this case will be made by EEOC. Accordingly. we are a~ ~his t.ime lqoqtviagrd: mx;:lhe c~tse to th::e" L*egal Utfit within the St. Lo~is Districl Of~ce for a detem~ination i~garding EEOC initia~ed ti~iga~iom
S~ncereb’,
Lynn Brtmer, District Direclor [

Case 205¯-cv-02404-KHV- |C~~h~~:~O ~i~ 1 Belie Pla:inei KS 67013

0/26/2005 Page 18 of 19 408 State Avenue

C©NFIDENTI.4L (2.@ CER .{ f60t,/(a J)

EEOC Char#e No

EEOC Representative

281-2084-57761

Tezzie S. Wells, i~vestigator

[~le 3hone No, (913} 551-5699

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

This Notice concludes the EEOC’s processing of the above-numbered charge, The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that violations ¢}f the statute(s} occurred with respect to some or all of [he ma~ters alleged in the charge b[~t could ~ot obtain a settlement with lhe Respondent that would provide relief for you, [n add[tiers. ~he EEOC has decided that is will net bring suit against the Res ponden( at this time based on this charge and will close i~.s ~ile in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC is certify!ha that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or thai ~[he EEOC wil~ not sue the Respondent later or intewe~]e later in ~our lawsuit ir you decide to sue on your own behalf,

- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS (see t~e add~tioqa~ ~nforma~o~ ~ttached ~o fhLs

this charge in federal or s~ate cou~L Your awsu ! must be filed WITHIN 90 D YS of your receipt of this Notice: oryour righ~ to sue based o~ 1his charge w l be lost (The [irr~e ~im ~ for f ing suit based on a sta~e claim may be different.)

Equa~ Pay Ac~ (E.PA}: EPA su ~s must be fed in federal or stale coudw t ~n 2 years (3 years forw[llful violations} of~he a~eged

EPA underpayment. This mean s that backpay due for any violatie ns that occu fred mere the

~{

before you

file suit ma~, not be co~tectibM.

If you file suit, based or~ this ct~arqe, please send a copy of your court complain[ to this o~£ce.

On behalf o[ ~he Commission

NEW~AN UNIVERS|TY 3100 ~cCor~ick Ave, ~chita, KS 67213

Lynn Y, Briner, 13irector

~Date Mailed)

Case 2:05-cv-02404-K io~~’~ ~ FIliNg26/2005 UNDER THE L~WS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC

Page 19 of t9

PRIVATE SU~T RIGHTS -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans w~th Disabiiities Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):
n order to pursue this mailer further, you rn~st fife a lawsuit against the respondent(s) rlamed in the charge within 98 da3,~, of the date you receive this Notice. Theretore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-day period ~s over, your right to sue based on the charge refer~ed ~.o i~ this Notice will be lost. Jf you in~end to consult an attorney. you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of [his Notice, and i~s en~eloue, and te~J him or ~er ~he date fou received Jr. Furthermore in order ~o avoid a~y question that you did not act i~ a timely manner, ~t ~s prudent that your suit be tiled within 98 days of the date ibis Notice was raailedto you (as ir~dicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of lhe postmark, if later.
Y[)ur Iawsuit may, be 5[e d in U.S. District Cou~ or a State court of competent jurisdiction- (Usually, the appropriate S cot~r( is the genera~ civi~ tdal equal.} Whether you file ir~ Federal or Sta~e court is a matter ~or you to decide after ta~k]ng to your attorney. Filir~g ~his Notice is not enough, You must file a "complaint" tha~ contains a s/]o~ statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your sui~ may include any matter alleged in the charge or. ~o the exlent ~)ermi~ed by couA decisions, matters like or related lo the matters afleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the S~te where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be bro[~.~]~t where relevant employment records are keuL where the employment would have been, or where the reslaondent has its main of[Jceo If you ~ave simple questions° you usually can get answers f[em the office o~ the c~erk o[ 1he coud where you are bringing suiL but do not expect that office to write your complaint or make legal strategy decisions for

PRIVATE SU|~ R~GHTS -~ Equa| Pay Act (EPA):

EPA Suits must be flied in co:ur[ within 2 years (3 years for willful violations} of ~he alleged EPA underpayment: backpay

due for ,. iolations that occurred mere than 2

before you file suit may not be co~ec{iMe, For example,

if yo~ were ~de~paid under the EPA fo~ work performed from 7/1/00 to 12,~1/00, you should file suit

-- not

1211/02 -- in order to recover ~mpaid wa~es due for July 2000. This time limit for filing an EPA SL~it is seoarate from the 90-day fi~in9 pedod under TitJe V]~ the ADA or t he ADEA referred [o aboveo Theretore, if you also plan to sue ~nder Title

VII, Ihe ADA or (he ADEA. in addition to suing on the ERA claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of tiffs Notice and within

the 2- or 3-year EPA backpay recoveG~ period.

A~ORNEY REPRESENTAT|ON -- Title VII and the ADA:
If VOL~ c~nno~ afford or have been unable ~o obtain a lawyer ~o represent you, the U,S. District Court having judsdiclion in your case may, in limited circumsla[lces, assist you n obtain n9 a awyer Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S, District Court in the form a~d manner it reauires (you should be ~repared to explain in detail your efforts lo retain an atlomey). Requests should be made w,e]l before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above, because suet requests do no~ relieve you of the requirement ~o bring suit witl][~ 90 days,

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE ~- All Statutes:
You may contact the EEOC r~presentative shown on your Notice if you need help i~ finding a lawyer or if yo~ have any questions abou~ your legal rights, including advice on wl~ich U.S DistridCourt can hear your case, lf,lou need to inspec~ or obtain a co py of information in EEOC’s ti~e on 1he charge, please re£uest it promptly in writing and provide your charge number {as shaw~ on your Notice), While EEOC destroys charge flies aRera certain ~ime, eli charge files are kept for at least 6 mo~]~,hs after our last action on the case. Therefore if you f~e suit and want to review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months ~f this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 90 days, )

YOU FtLE SUIT, ~L.EASE SEND A COPY OF ~OUR COURT COMP&AfNT TO THIS OFFfCE.

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

MARLA SEXSON,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor)

)

v.

)

)

NEWMAN UNIVERSITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 05-2404-KHV

CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has

instituted this action alleging that Defendant Newman University

(“Newman”) refused to promote Marla Sexson (“Sexson”) on the basis

of her sex, and then retaliated against Sexson when she made a

protected complaint of discrimination, both in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiff-Intervenor Sexson has intervened

in this action, alleging that Newman discriminated against her on

the basis of sex, retaliated against her when she made a protected complaint of discrimination, created a hostile work

environment on the basis of sex, and constructively discharged

her employment, all in violation of Title VII, and that Newman

invaded Sexson=s privacy and committed the tort of outrage in violation of Kansas law. Newman has denied Sexson’s allegations and has specifically denied violation of any of Sexson’s legal rights. For purposes of settlement and compromise only, the parties have advised the Court that they wish to resolve the instant controversy without the expense, delay and burden of further litigation, understanding that by entering into this Consent Decree Newman is not admitting any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever.
THEREFORE, it is the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and on the record as a whole and upon agreement of the parties, that: (i) this Court has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this action, (ii) the requirements of Title VII and Kansas law will be carried out by the implementation of this Decree, (iii) this Decree is intended to and does resolve all matters in controversy in this lawsuit among the parties, and (iv) the terms of this Decree constitute a fair and equitable settlement of all issues in this lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: I. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND NON-RETALIATION
1. In all matters arising from or relating to employment, Newman and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns, and all of those in active concert or participation with
2

them, or any of them, shall not engage in any employment practice which unlawfully discriminates against an employee or applicant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. Newman, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, shall not engage in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because such person:
a. opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII;
b. filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission or a state agency or testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII; c. requested and/or received relief in accordance with this Consent Decree; d. participated in any manner in this action or in the investigation giving rise to this action; or e. asserted any rights under this Consent Decree. II. MONETARY RELIEF 3. Within fifteen (15) days after this Decree is approved by the Court, Newman will forward to Michael M. Shultz a check made payable to him in the amount of Sixty Two Thousand Sixty Six Dollars and Forty Six Cents ($62,066.46) and a separate check to
3

Marla Sexson in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and Fifty Four Cents ($120,433.54). Shultz and Sexson shall each provide Newman a Form W-9 and Newman shall issue a Form 1099 to Shultz and to Sexson for the payments. III. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Decree, Newman will revise its anti-discrimination policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring, firing, work assignment, pay, evaluation, promotion or any other term or condition of employment; harassment or creation of a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and retaliation against any employee who opposes any practice declared unlawful under Title VII, including filing a charge, giving testimony or assistance, or participating in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII. Newman will revise its procedures for the reporting of complaints of discrimination to include multiple avenues for reporting and to require management employees to report all instances of discrimination to the VPHR or other appropriate officials. Such procedures shall provide for an avenue of reporting complaints of discrimination against the President directly to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Newman will discipline, up to and including termination, any employee who fails to adhere to the Newman=s anti-discrimination
4

policy and will include adherence to the anti-discrimination policy in its evaluations of administrative and supervisory personnel.
5. Within ninety (90) days of this agreement, Newman will inform all employees in writing of the anti-discrimination policy, reporting procedures, and disciplinary procedures set forth in paragraph 4. Newman will require each employee to sign a stipulation that the policy has been read and understood. All new hires will, within fourteen (14) days of hire, receive the anti-discrimination policy, reporting procedures, and disciplinary procedures set forth in paragraph 4 and will sign a stipulation that the policy has been read and understood.
6. Within ninety (90) days of this agreement, all administrative and supervisory employees will attend a minimum of 4 hours of training on federal and state statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment, including at least one hour on the topic of prohibited discrimination in promotion, pay, and terms and conditions of employment. The training will include interactive components. This training will be repeated on an annual basis.
7. Within fifteen (15) days of this agreement, Newman will place copies of Sexson’s Charges of Discrimination and this
5

Consent Decree in former President Aidan O. Dunleavy’s permanent

personnel file.

8. Newman will continue to employ a full-time Vice

President of Human Resources (“VPHR”) who shall report to the

President.

The VPHR will have an educational and / or

professional background in human resources or personnel

management and compliance with federal and state statutes

prohibiting discrimination in employment.

Newman will

designate the VPHR as the University official responsible for

training and compliance with the University’s anti-discrimination

policies and procedures. The VPHR will also deliver to each

member of the Executive Committee of Newman’s Board of Trustees a

copy of this Decree and copies of all reports required by this

Decree.

9. The VPHR will have responsibility for the maintenance

of all personnel files for the University. No files (other than

files relating to faculty academic issues to be maintained under

the direction of the Provost) will be maintained on any employee

other than the official file maintained by the VPHR.

10. Upon inquiry regarding Sexson and her employment at

Newman, Newman will provide only the following information:

Sexson’s dates of employment and positions held at Newman.

6

Newman will provide no additional information on Sexson unless compelled by legal process. IV. POSTING AND NOTICES
11. Newman will post and cause to remain posted the posters required to be displayed in the workplace by Commission Regulations, 29 C.F.R. ' 1601.30.
12. Newman will post and cause to remain posted during the term of this Consent Decree copies of the notice attached as Exhibit A in public locations viewable by all employees. V. MONITORING AND REPORTING
13. At any time during the effect of this Consent Decree, the Commission=s Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office may request in writing from the VPHR a report, including supporting documentation, regarding the University=s continued compliance with any term of this Decree. The University will provide such reports, as requested, within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed thirty (30) days after the request is made.
14. Upon reasonable, written notice to the University, the EEOC may conduct random interviews, file reviews and copy documents to monitor compliance with this Decree.
15. Within ninety (90) days after this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, Newman will prepare and submit to the Commission=s Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office a
7

copy of the checks forwarded to Michael M. Shultz and Marla Sexson as described in paragraph 3 above and a letter stating that all obligations imposed on Newman by this Consent Decree have been fulfilled and describing the manner and dates on which such compliance was effected.
16. On a semi-annual basis after this Consent Decree is approved by the Court, Newman will prepare and submit to the Commission=s Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office a list of all non-faculty personnel who were denied promotion, terminated or laid off, whose position was restructured or eliminated, or who involuntarily resigned or retired during the previous six months. This list will include each such individual=s name; home address; home telephone number; date of separation; a brief description of the reason for separation; and the name of each person involved in the employment decision. If no individuals exist in these categories for the previous six months, Newman will so inform the Commission=s Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office.
17. On a quarterly basis after this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, Newman will prepare and submit to the Commission=s Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office a list of all employees who have complained of or reported any discrimination in employment on the basis of sex during that
8

quarter. This list will include each such individual=s name; home address; home telephone number; nature of the individual=s complaint; name of individual who received the complaint or report; date complaint or report was received; description of Newman=s actions taken in response to the complaint or report, including the name of each manager or supervisor involved in those actions. If no individuals have complained of or reported any discrimination in employment on the basis of sex during that quarter, Newman will so inform the Commission=s Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office. V. TERM AND EFFECT OF DECREE
18. By entering into this Consent Decree the parties do not intend to resolve any charges of discrimination currently pending before the Commission other than the charge that created the procedural foundation for the complaint in this case.
19. This Consent Decree will be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns.
20. This Consent Decree will be for a period of three (3) years and can be extended by the Court for good cause shown. During the Consent Decree=s term the Court will retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance.
21. Each party will bear its own costs.
9

BY CONSENT:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

/s/ Robert G. Johnson _____________________________ ROBERT G. JOHNSON Regional Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office 1222 Spruce St., Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 539-7910 (phone) (314) 539-7895 (fax) bob.johnson@eeoc.gov (e-mail)

/s/ Andrea G. Baran

_____________________________

ANDREA G. BARAN

MO # 46520

Senior Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

Kansas City Area Office

400 State Ave., Ste. 905

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-5848 (phone)

(913) 551-6957 (fax)

andrea.baran@eeoc.gov (e-mail)

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR:

/s/ Michael M. Shultz

_____________________________

MICHAEL M. SHULTZ

KS

#18093

Law Firm of Michael M. Shultz

7270 W. 98th Terrace

Suite 220

Overland Park, KS 66212

tel.: 913-385-9955

fax: 913-385-9977

e-mail:

shultz@shultzlawfirm.com

FOR DEFENDANT:

/s/ Stanley D. Davis

_____________________________

STANLEY D. DAVIS

KS

#12352

DANA M. MEHRER

KS

#78001

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.

2555 Grand Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64108-2613

tel.: 816-474-6550

fax: 816-421-5547

sddavis@shb.com (e-mail)

dmehrer@shb.com (e-mail)

SO ORDERED: Dated: March 13, 2006

s/ Kathryn H. Vratil Kathryn H. Vratil UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND JOB APPLICANTS (on University letterhead)

This Notice is posted as part of a remedy agreed to pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Newman University, Case No. 052404-KHV, on file in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City. The agreed remedy as set forth in the Consent Decree includes revision of Newman’s Human Resources department and discrimination policies and procedures; training to its staff regarding federal and state statutes prohibiting employment discrimination; notice of rights to employees and job applicants; reporting requirements; and agreement by Newman University to not discriminate on the basis of sex in hiring, firing, work assignments, pay, promotion or other terms or conditions of employment.

Federal law prohibits discrimination against any employee because of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, disability or age (forty and over) with respect to hiring, promotion, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of or oppose practices they believe are discriminatory on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, disability or age (forty and over), and it prohibits retaliation against persons who file charges with the EEOC, or who participate in or cooperate with an EEOC investigation.

Newman University supports and will comply with such federal law in all respects and will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law. Specifically, Newman University will not tolerate discrimination in employment, nor will it tolerate retaliation against any employee for exercising rights under law.

Employees or job applicants should feel free to report instances of discriminatory treatment to the Vice President of Human Resources at any time. Newman University has established policies and procedures to promptly investigate any such reports and to protect the person making the reports from retaliation, including retaliation by the person allegedly guilty of the discrimination. Individuals are also free to make complaints

11

about employment discrimination to the Office of the Regional Attorney, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Kansas City Area Office, 400 State Avenue, Suite 905, Kansas City, KS 66101 (Attention: Andrea G. Baran, Senior Trial Attorney) or by telephone to (913) 551-5848 or e-mail to andrea.baran@eeoc.gov.
PROPOSED 12/2/05 12

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

NEWMAN UNIVERSITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION Case No. 05-2404-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed suit, alleging that Newman

University (“Newman”) discriminated against Marla Sexson on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The matter is before

the Court on Defendant’s Request For Determination That Wichita, Kansas Be The Designated Location

For The Docketing, Maintenance, And Trial Of This Case (Doc. #11) filed October 25, 2005. For

reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is overruled.

Legal Standards

D. Kan. Rule 40.2 provides that “[t]he court shall not be bound by the requests for place of trial

but may, upon motion by a party, or in its discretion determine the place of trial.” In considering motions

for intra-district transfer, the courts of this district have generally looked to the factors relevant to change

of venue motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).1 See Bauer v. City of De Soto, Ks., No. 04-4027-JAR,

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, “in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil

action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The Court recognizes that the

(continued...)

2004 WL 2580790, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 3, 2004); Hartwick v. Lodge 70 Int’l, No. 99-4139-SAC, 2000 WL 970670, at *1 (D. Kan. June 16, 2000) (citing Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 896 F. Supp. 1063, 1064 (D. Kan. 1995); Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Pierce, No. 94-4086 RDR, 1994 WL 478744, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 25, 1994)). In evaluating a transfer under Section 1404(a), the Court considers plaintiff’s choice of forum, the convenience for witnesses, the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, the relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial, and “all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical.” Hartwick, 2000 WL 970670, at *1 (citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515-16 (10th Cir. 1991)). “Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the movant the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Id. (citing Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotations and citations omitted)). Furthermore, except for the most compelling reasons, cases are generally not transferred between cities. Bauer, 2004 WL 2580790, at *1. The moving party bears the burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient. Id.
Analysis Newman argues thattrialshould be in Wichita because the case is factually centered in Wichita and the majority of witnesses reside there. The EEOC responds that Newman has not shown that Kansas City is an inconvenient forum. The EEOC is located in Kansas City. It handled the investigation from its Kansas City office. The attorneys for all parties are in Kansas City. The EEOC also argues that it is premature to determine where witnesses will come from because the parties have not yet exchanged witness lists. Sexson asserts similar arguments as the EEOC, and further contends that the location of documentary
1(...continued) statute is inapplicable on its face as Kansas comprises only one judicial district and division. The statute provides, however, that “[a] district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c).
-2-

evidence is irrelevant. I. Plaintiff’s Choice Of Forum
Newman argues that the balance of the factors overrides the EEOC’s choice of forum. Specifically, Newman argues that Sexson does not reside in Kansas City. Neither party disputes this fact, but the EEOC, who originally filed suit, resides in Kansas City and its only Kansas office is located in the metropolitan area.
Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to great deference. Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965. Where plaintiff’s choice of forum is not its residence, that consideration is given much less weight. Wichita Investors, LLC v. Wichita Shopping Ctr. Assocs., No. 02-2186-CM, 2002 WL 1998206, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2002) (citing Ervin & Assocs., Inc. v. Cisneros, 939 F. Supp. 793, 799 (D. Colo. 1996)).
Here, the original plaintiff is located in Kansas City. Sexson, the intervenor-plaintiff, resides near Wichita and does not object to Kansas City as the location for trial. Defendant’s argument that plaintiff does not reside in Kansas City is not compelling. II. Convenience And Accessibility Of The Witnesses
Newmanarguesthatmostwitnessesand sources of proof are located in Wichita. Plaintiffs respond that Newman’s argument is speculative and premature because witness lists and Rule 26(a) disclosures have not been exchanged. The parties do not contend that witnesses and documents will be inaccessible if trial is held in Kansas City. The Court cannot effectively evaluate this factor until discovery has been completed and finalwitness lists have been filed. See Biglowv. Boeing Co., 174 F. Supp.2d 1187, 1195 (D. Kan. 2001) (motion to determine place of trial premature until discovery complete and scope of trial determined).
-3-

III. Fair Trial Newman argues that a fair trial can be had in Wichita, but does not argue that a fair trial cannot be
had in Kansas City. Sexson notes that the Wichita media has covered this case, but does not contend that she could not receive a fair trial in Wichita. This factor does not clearly weigh in favor of any party or location. IV. Other Considerations
Newman contends that because the case is in an early stage, transfer will not cause unnecessary delay or prejudice any party. The Court agrees that no unnecessary delays would result from transfer at this time.
Defendant also argues that the location of the parties’ counsel is not a prominent factor in determining transfer. Convenience of counsel is given little if any weight. See Studdard v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 291, 292 (D. Kan. 1992); see, e.g., Aramburu, 896 F. Supp. at 1063 (location of plaintiff’s counselin Topeka not sufficient to support trying case inTopeka whenwitnesses and evidence located in Wichita).
After considering all factors, the Court finds that Newman has not set forth a compelling case for transfer. At this time, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of factors strongly outweighs plaintiff’s choice of forum. The Court therefore overrules defendant’s motion.
-4-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Request For Determination That Wichita, Kansas Be The Designated LocationFor The Docketing, Maintenance,And TrialOfThis Case (Doc. #11) filed October 25, 2005, be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 4th day of January, 2006 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Kathryn H. Vratil KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge
-5-

 </s> District of Kansas - Docket Report

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...

U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Newman University Assigned to: District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil Referred to: Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 09/21/2005 Date Terminated: 03/13/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Andrea G. Baran U. S. Equal Empoyment Opportunity Commission - KCK 400 State Ave Kansas City, KS 66101 913-551-5848 Fax: 913-551-6957 Email: andrea.baran@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce - Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7915 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert G Johnson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission- St Louis Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce - Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7910 Fax: 314-539-7895 Email: robert.johnson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna L. Harper Equal Employment Opportunity

1 of 7

6/7/2007 9:27 AM

District of Kansas - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Marla Sexson V. Defendant Newman University
2 of 7

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...
Commission- St Louis Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce - Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7914 Fax: 314-539-7895 Email: donna.harper@eeoc.gov
represented by Michael M. Shultz Law Firm of Michael M. Shultz 7270 W. 98th Terr. - Ste. 220 Overland Park, KS 66212 913-385-9955 Fax: 913-385-9977 Email: shultz@shultzlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dana M. Mehrer Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. -- Kansas City/Grand 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2616 816-559-2035 Fax: 816-421-5547 Email: dmehrer@shb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stanley D. Davis Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. -- Kansas City/Grand 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2616 816-474-6550 Fax: 816-421-5547 Email: sddavis@shb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen Aggeler Page Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. -- Kansas City/Grand 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2616
6/7/2007 9:27 AM

District of Kansas - Docket Report

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...

816-474-6550 Fax: 816-421-5547 Email: kpage@shb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/22/2005 10/06/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/24/2005
10/25/2005
10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (No summons issued) with trial location of Kansas City, KS filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(jb) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
Summons Issued as to Newman University. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (kao) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
2 MOTION to Intervene by Movant Marla Sexon(Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
3 Summons Returned Executed -- certified mail by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upon Newman University served on 9/29/2005, answer due 10/19/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
4 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Kristen Aggeler Page on behalf of Newman University. (Page, Kristen) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
5 CLERK'S ORDER extending time until 10/31/05 for Defendant Newman University, Newman University to answer or otherwise plead.Signed by Deputy Clerk on 10/18/05. (jb) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
6 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Stanley D. Davis on behalf of Newman University. (Davis, Stanley) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
7 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE:Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 11/30/2005 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Report of Parties Planning Meeting deadline 11/18/2005. Signed by MagistrateJudge James P. O'Hara on 10/24/2005.(kg) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
8 Order granting the unopposed motion 2 of movant Marla Sexton to intervene as plaintiff in this case. Movant shall file and serve her complaint within 11 days of the date of the filing of this order. Signed by MagistrateJudge James P. O'Hara on 10/25/05.(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (mt, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
9 Intervenor COMPLAINT of Marla Sexson, filed by Marla Sexon.(Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION and Notice to Counsel: A correction has been made in the record to regarding the spelling of Intervenor Plaintiff's last name. The correct spelling of her name is Sexson. (mg) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
10 DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Defendant Newman University - trial to be held in Wichita, Kansas. (Page, Kristen) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
11 MOTION to Transfer Case Defendant's Request for Determination That Wichita, Kansas Be The Designated Location for the Docketing, Maintenance and Trial of

3 of 7

6/7/2007 9:27 AM

District of Kansas - Docket Report

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...

10/26/2005 10/26/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/08/2005
11/10/2005 11/14/2005
11/18/2005 11/18/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005

This Case by Defendant Newman University (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Page, Kristen) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
12 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Newman University identifying not-for-profit corporation Adorers of the Blood of Christ, United States Province as corporate parent. (Page, Kristen) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
13 AMENDED INTERVENOR COMPLAINT by Marla Sexson.(Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
14 RESPONSE by Intervenor Plaintiff Marla Sexson re 11 MOTION to Transfer Case Defendant's Request for Determination That Wichita, Kansas Be The Designated Location for the Docketing, Maintenance and Trial of This Case (Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
15 NEWMAN UNIVERSITY'S ANSWER to Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint by Newman University.(Page, Kristen) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
16 MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 11 MOTION to Transfer Case Defendant's Request for Determination That Wichita, Kansas Be The Designated Location for the Docketing, Maintenance and Trial of This Case (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
17 CLERK'S ORDER extending time until November 30, 2005 for Defendants Newman University. Signed by deputy clerk on 11/10/05.(kao) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
18 REPLY to Response to Motion by Defendant Newman University re: 11 MOTION to Transfer Case Defendant's Request for Determination That Wichita, Kansas Be The Designated Location for the Docketing, Maintenance and Trial of This Case Defendant Newman University's Reply in Further Support of its Request for Determination that Wichita, Kansas be the Designated Location for the Docketing, Maintenance, and Trial of this case (Page, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
19 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Marla Sexson of Written Discovery Requests Upon Newman University (Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of First Request for Production of Documents. (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
21 ANSWER to Plaintiff/Intervenor Marla Sexon's 13 First Amended Complaint by Newman University.(Page, Kristen) Modified on 12/1/2005 (ck ). (Entered: 11/30/2005)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery deadline 5/31/2006. Dispositive motion deadline set for 7/7/2006. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 6/6/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/20/2006 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Trial set for 11/7/2006 at 9:30 AM before District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil. SEE ORDER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SCHEDULED DEADLINES AND HEARINGS. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/30/2005.(kg) (Entered: 11/30/2005)

4 of 7

6/7/2007 9:27 AM

District of Kansas - Docket Report

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...

11/30/2005
12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/13/2005 12/13/2005 12/14/2005 12/20/2005 01/04/2006 01/12/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/16/2006 01/18/2006

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara : Scheduling Conference held on 11/30/2005 (TEXT ENTRY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (kg) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
23 JOINT MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant Newman University(Page, Kristen) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Newman University Newman University's Voluntary Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). (Page, Kristen) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rule 26 Initial Disclosures Served 12/9/05 (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
26 ORDER granting 23 Joint Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/13/05. (sl) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
27 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Marla Sexson of Rule 26 Disclosures (Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
28 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Marla Sexson of Second Request for Production of Documents Upon Newman University (Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
29 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of taking deposition of 30(b)(6) on January 18, 2006 (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
30 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 11 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 1/4/06. (ls) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
31 NOTICE by Defendant Newman University of taking deposition of Marla Sexson on January 19, 2006 (Davis, Stanley) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of discovery responses. by Newman University. (Davis, Stanley) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
34 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of taking deposition of Jeanna Scott on January 18, 2006 (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
35 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of taking deposition of Mark Dresselhaus on January 20, 2006 (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
36 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Marla Sexson of Responses to Written Discovery (Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2006)
37 NOTICE of Hearing: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) Status Conference set for 10/11/2006 at 01:30 PM before District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil at 500 State Avenue, Suite 511, Kansas City, Kansas. (ls) (Entered: 01/18/2006)

5 of 7

6/7/2007 9:27 AM

District of Kansas - Docket Report

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...

01/24/2006 01/30/2006
02/01/2006 02/01/2006 03/13/2006 03/28/2006

38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant Newman University's Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff/Intervenor Marla Sexson by Newman University. (Davis, Stanley) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
39 MEDIATION MINUTE ORDER - The undersigned magistrate judge has reviewed the confidential settlement reports submitted by the parties' respective attorneys. It does not appear that mediation (or for that matter any other form of mandated ADR) would be productive until sometime after defendant has deposed Kim Miller Jacobs in Nebraska on 2/21/06. By 3/3/06, defendant shall make a good faith settlement counter-proposal, responding to the proposal previously made by plaintiff. By 3/10/06, plaintiff shall respond to defendant's counter-proposal. By 3/20/06, each of the parties' attorneys shall submit independently, by way of e-mail addressed to the undersigned magistrate judge, an updated confidential settlement report. These reports shall briefly set forth the parties' settlement efforts to date, current evaluations of the case, views concerning future settlement negotiations and the overall prospects for settlement, and a specific recommendation regarding mediation and/or any other ADR method, together with an indication concerning who has been selected by the parties (preferably jointly) to serve as a mediator or other neutral in an ADR process. These reports need not be served upon opposing parties and shall not be filed with the Clerk's Office. Thereafter, the court may order the parties to participate in mediation or another ADR process. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/30/06.(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry)(O'Hara, James) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
40 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Dana M. Mehrer on behalf of Newman University (Mehrer, Dana) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
41 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Marla Sexson of Written Discovery (Shultz, Michael) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
42 CONSENT DECREE, Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns shall not engage in reprisal or retaliation as set forth in this order. Consent Decree is binding on all parties for a period of three years and can be extended. Each party to bear its own costs. Signed by Kathryn H. Vratil on 3/13/06.(ls) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
43 STIPULATION of Dismissal Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal by Marla Sexson, Newman University. (Mehrer, Dana) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/07/2007 09:27:07

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-02404-KHV-JPO

6 of 7

6/7/2007 9:27 AM

District of Kansas - Docket Report

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105631248963008-L_35...

Billable Pages:

4

Cost: 0.32

7 of 7

6/7/2007 9:27 AM

 </s> EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - March 2006

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement03-06.html

EEOC v. Newman University No. 2:05-CV-02404-KHV (D. Kan. March 13, 2006)
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a Catholic liberal arts school in Wichita, Kansas, refused to promote charging party to Vice President of Enrollment Management (VP-Enrollment), based on her sex (female), and demoted her in retaliation for her complaints about sex discrimination. CP had received several promotions over her 12 years with defendant and was the Dean of Admissions when her boss, the female VP-Enrollment, resigned in August 2004. CP immediately began performing the VP-Enrollment's duties along with her own. Despite university policy requiring internal posting before jobs could be advertised externally, defendant failed to internally post the VP-Enrollment position. CP nevertheless applied to the external announcement. In September 2004, university President Aidan Dunleavy told CP that none of the applicants had been qualified and he was going to bring in a consultant (male). CP confronted Dunleavy with two instances in which he had expressed an intention to hire men for management positions, including the VP- Enrollment position, and told him she knew filling the VP-Enrollment job would "come down to gender." CP then filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC. Six days after the EEOC mailed the charge to defendant, the male consultant began work as the Interim VP-Enrollment. Three days later, on October 14, 2004, defendant changed CP's title to Director of U.S. Admissions and reduced her duties from handling four departments financial aid, admissions, visitors center, and admissions recruiters to handling only admissions recruiters. CP resigned the following day.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, CP will receive $182,000 in monetary relief. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating against applicants or employees and from engaging in retaliation or reprisal under Title VII. Defendant will place copies of CP's discrimination charge and the consent decree in former President Dunleavy's permanent personnel file. (Dunleavy's resignation was announced in December 2005, 3 months after EEOC's suit was filed.) In addition, defendant will revise its antidiscrimination policy to include multiple avenues for reporting allegations of discrimination (including reporting complaints against the President directly to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees), and will require managers to report all instances of discrimination.

1 of 1

6/7/2007 9:47 AM


[CONTENT] September 2005 | the St. Louis District Office of the EEOC | the Kansas City Area Office | Newman University | the U.S. District Court | Kansas | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 |||  |||  ||| October 2005 ||| March 2006 ||| three-year | Human Resources | EEOC | 182,500 ||| 2009 [SUMMARY] In September 2005, the St. Louis District Office of the EEOC (with participation from the Kansas City Area Office) brought this suit against Newman University in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant refused to promote the charging party, a female employee, to a position she was well qualified for because of her sex.  In addition, the defendant allegedly retaliated against the charging party after she complained of the discrimination by changing her job title and duties, resulting in her constructive discharge.  The charging party intervened in the suit in October 2005.  After some scheduling orders and discovery, the parties settled through a consent decree in March 2006.  

The three-year decree, containing non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the defendant to: revise its anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedures, inform employees in writing of the changes to its policies, distribute a notice of rights, provide annual EEO training for all its administrative and supervisory employees, employ a Vice President of Human Resources to be in charge of compliance with its policies and the decree, provide the charging party with a neutral employment reference, post notices of rights, report to the EEOC at specified intervals, and pay $182,500. The docket sheet doesn't show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2009.


