Salary compression and inversion in the university workplace

Abstract

There are two grounds in the United States for bringing a claim of race or gender discrimination: (1) discriminatory intent and (2) discriminatory effect. As to age discrimination, however, a plaintiff is allowed to bring a claim only on grounds of discriminatory intent. Our purpose herein is to argue that with regard to age discrimination in the university, discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent are one: discriminatory intent is hidden inside certain employment practices that appear to be "facially neutral" but are not. In other words, stripped of its disguises discriminatory effect that persists is discriminatory intent. This paper identifies five strategies to disguise disparate treatment as disparate impact: resistance, pretense, evasion, denial, and approval. The final section explains how a specific university employed these five strategies to hide its discriminatory intent behind discriminatory effect.

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Well-Being in Academic Employees

“…Research carried out on emotional intelligence includes that associated with stress, burnout, discrimination, and bullying (Kinman et al, 2006;Lewis, 2004;O'Boyle, 2001;Simpson and Cohen, 2004). Emotional intelligence can also be influential in helping teachers cope with stressful experiences (Nelson et al, 2006;Selva and Loh, 2008).…”

Pay Inversion at Universities: Is it Ethical?

“…In addition, in January, 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled that state agencies, including state universities, are immune from lawsuits filed by their employees. Thus, a faculty member at a public university could file a lawsuit only under applicable state laws, if any (O'Boyle, 2001). This ruling, of course, does not apply to private universities that would still be subject to the ADEA.…”

“…Since pay inversion typically affects only older faculty, one might expect that it would be illegal and therefore unethical under the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). However, this is not the case since under the act, plaintiffs must bring a claim on the grounds of discriminatory intent, not adverse impact (O'Boyle, 2001). The university could argue that there was no discriminatory intent and that pay inversion was simply done out of ''business necessity.''…”

“…However, in the last five or so years, compression has evolved into salary inversion (Jennings and McLaughlin, 1997;Lamb and Moates, 1999;O'Boyle, 2001). While the difference between compression and inversion may be less than a few thousand dollars, it appears that inversion is a much greater issue than compression for three reasons.…”

“…In addition to this comprehensive study, anecdotal evidence suggests that, at some universities, new hires are earning more than full professors. O'Boyle (2001) has defined inversion as ''the hiring of lower ranked faculty at salaries which are above the salaries of higher-ranked faculty and have the effect of inverting the common practice of paying higher salaries to the higher ranked faculty (p. 976).''…”