Louis Schwartz v. Florida Board of Regents
807 F.2d 901, 43 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1856, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1628 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A settlement agreement that resolves past employment discrimination claims does not constitute a prospective waiver of an employee's rights under Title VII or the Equal Pay Act for discriminatory acts that occur after the settlement period.
Facts:
- In the 1970s, Florida State University (FSU) initiated salary equity studies, mandated by state law, to adjust the salaries of female faculty members who were paid less than their male counterparts.
- Dr. Louis Schwartz, a male professor at FSU, was denied the opportunity to participate in these studies.
- Schwartz filed a grievance and then a lawsuit against FSU in 1978, alleging that the female-only studies were discriminatory against men and resulted in him being paid inequitably.
- In 1979, the state law was amended to include men, and Schwartz subsequently settled his lawsuit with FSU.
- The settlement agreement provided Schwartz a lump sum payment, adjusted his 1979-80 base salary, and guaranteed his right to participate in future salary equity studies.
- In the years following the settlement (1981-1984), Schwartz submitted claims for salary adjustments through the equity studies.
- FSU denied Schwartz's claims each year, asserting that any discrepancy between his actual and expected salary was not caused by sex discrimination.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Schwartz sued Florida State University (FSU) in a U.S. District Court in 1978 for sex-based pay discrimination.
- The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the 1978 lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
- Dr. Schwartz subsequently filed a new lawsuit in U.S. District Court against FSU officials, alleging continuing pay discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the years following the settlement.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for the defendants on several issues.
- Following a bench trial on the remaining claims, the district court found that Schwartz had proven no pay disparity and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Schwartz, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a settlement agreement resolving past sex-based pay discrimination claims and establishing a new base salary for a specific year preclude an employee from bringing future claims of pay discrimination that arise after the settlement period?
Opinions:
Majority - Godbold, Circuit Judge
No. A settlement agreement resolving past claims of discrimination does not waive an employee's right to bring claims for discrimination that occurs after the settlement date. The settlement agreement's plain language was intended to end litigation regarding issues prior to July 1, 1980, not to waive future claims. It explicitly guaranteed Schwartz the right to participate in future salary equity studies, which contradicts the notion that it established permanent salary parity. An employee cannot prospectively waive rights under Title VII or the Equal Pay Act, as doing so would nullify the purposes of these statutes. While Schwartz is bound by the base salary established in the settlement agreement for that year, he can still bring claims for discriminatory pay practices in subsequent years. The district court erred by using Schwartz's actual salary each year in its calculations, as this method improperly assumed his pay was equitable in the years following the settlement; the correct approach is to calculate the salary he should have received each year based on the prior year's projected equitable salary, starting with the agreed-upon settlement salary.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that statutory rights to be free from workplace discrimination cannot be prospectively waived. It clarifies that settlement agreements resolve past and present disputes but do not grant employers immunity from liability for future discriminatory acts. The case provides a crucial analytical framework for courts evaluating ongoing pay discrimination claims following a settlement, instructing them to use the settled salary as a new, non-disputable baseline for that specific period, but to then project forward what an equitable salary progression would have been, rather than assuming subsequent actual salaries were non-discriminatory. This protects employees from having initial settlement gains eroded by subsequent, ongoing discrimination.
