Judge wants meeting in YSU gender bias suit

By Harold Gwin

A meeting next week could determine if the case goes to trial or is settled.

YOUNGSTOWN — A long-simmering federal lawsuit filed against Youngstown State University by its former general counsel may come to trial in June, unless it’s resolved in a settlement conference scheduled for Tuesday.

Atty. Sandra L. Denman is alleging gender discrimination and retaliation by the university and is asking the U.S. District court for the Northern District of Ohio to award her monetary damages and even reinstatement, if the court deems it appropriate.

Denman, who no longer works for the university, served as the YSU’s general counsel and assistant to the president from March 1994 until June 30, 2004, and said in her complaint that the university refused to renew her contract and moved her into a lower-paying, nonattorney position after she challenged what she deemed to be the “pattern and practice” of YSU to pay its female employees (including her) at a lower rate than male employees who performed equal work on jobs under similar working conditions.

She further claimed that the university uses federal funds to help pay employee salaries, and the alleged discrimination is a violation of federal equal pay rights law.

YSU denied the allegations in its response to the lawsuit.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus scheduled the case for trial June 3. However, on Monday he issued an order directing both sides to meet with him in chambers Tuesday for a settlement conference.

Denman filed her original federal court complaint in 2005, saying that she had brought the salary discrepancies and alleged discrimination to the attention of YSU President David C. Sweet, the board of trustees and other university officials, but no corrective action was taken.

Instead, the university declined to renew her general counsel contract when it expired June 30, 2004, and retaliated against her by assigning her to the post of director of environmental and occupational health, a nonattorney post with a much lower pay scale, and created a hostile working environment, she said.

The university, in its response, said it dealt promptly with all “actionable” reports of harassment it was made aware of and denied that there was any retaliation or discrimination involved in its actions.

It also said Denman failed to follow her employer’s remedies for reporting and addressing claimed harassment.

Further, the university said its actions were “motivated by legitimate business reasons and not by discriminatory animus.”

gwin@vindy.com