Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffstatuteequitymotiondiscrimination

statutediscriminationnovation

Related Cases

Lowrey v. Texas A&M University System, 11 F.Supp.2d 895, 136 Lab.Cas. P 33,754, 129 Ed. Law Rep. 122

Facts

Jan Lowrey, a female basketball coach at Tarleton State University, alleged that the university discriminated against her based on her sex and retaliated against her for her complaints regarding gender equity. Despite her successful coaching record, she faced inadequate facilities and was not considered for a promotion to Athletics Director, a position given to a male colleague. After filing a complaint with the Department of Justice regarding Title IX violations, Lowrey experienced negative performance reviews and was reassigned from her position as Women's Athletics Coordinator. She ultimately resigned and filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Title IX and other claims.

Lowrey's success did not lead to improved conditions for the women's basketball team. For example, the locker room used by the women's team from the early 1980s was the former men's visiting-team dressing room. Tarleton repeatedly ignored requests from Lowrey for renovations. Lowrey and the team manager ultimately installed shower rods and curtains to divide the showers.

Issue

Did the university retaliate against Lowrey in violation of Title IX and other statutes?

Rule

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, that the employer took adverse action against her, and that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Additionally, the Equal Pay Act requires proof that the employer paid the employee less than a male counterpart for equal work.

Analysis

The court found that material questions of fact existed regarding whether Lowrey's removal from her position constituted an adverse employment action and whether it was retaliatory in nature. The evidence suggested that her complaints about gender equity were a motivating factor in the university's actions against her. Furthermore, the court noted that the university's failure to promote her and the negative performance reviews could also be seen as retaliatory actions.

Conclusion

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing Lowrey's claims of retaliation and pay discrimination to proceed based on the existence of material questions of fact.

Who won?

The court's decision to reverse and remand part of the case indicates that Lowrey prevailed on significant aspects of her claims, particularly regarding retaliation and pay discrimination. The court recognized that there were unresolved factual issues that warranted further examination, thus allowing her claims to move forward.

The court's decision to reverse and remand part of the case indicates that Lowrey prevailed on significant aspects of her claims, particularly regarding retaliation and pay discrimination.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Brown v. Coach Stores, Inc., 163 F.3d 706, 78 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 917, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,682

McFarland v. George Washington University, 935 A.2d 337, 101 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1874, 226 Ed. Law Rep. 921

Plancher v. UCF Athletics Ass’n, Inc., 175 So.3d 724, 323 Ed. Law Rep. 1176, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S302

Smith v. Xerox Corp., 196 F.3d 358, 81 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 343, 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 46,193

Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, 705 N.W.2d 746