DMACC wins Iowa Supreme Court appeal after worker's $1.4M sex discrimination verdict

An IT worker awarded $1.4 million by a jury failed to prove her claim that her employer, Des Moines Area Community College, discriminated against her because of her sex.

Sandra Selden has worked for DMACC since 2013, and sued the college in 2020. She argued that she and other female tech workers were being paid "tens of thousands of dollars less" than a male colleague, and that when she complained, the school retaliated by refusing to consider her for a promotion.

The case went to trial in November 2021, and the jury sided with Selden. She was awarded $223,500 in back wages and $986,000 for past and future emotional distress, plus interest, for a total of nearly $1.38 million.

DMACC appealed, and on Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the district judge erred by failing to grant a directed verdict for the college. Administrators provided sufficient evidence that the pay disparity between Selden and her male colleague was due to his greater seniority, the unanimous court ruled, and Selden failed to prove her retaliation claim because she lacked one of the qualifications for the promotion she sought.

Court finds DMACC showed benign reasons for pay gap

The heart of the case was the pay split between Selden, hired in 2013, and a male coworker who'd been with DMACC since 1998.

Selden acknowledged that her coworker could be expected to earn more than her, based on an additional 15 years of seniority and annual raises. But her attorneys argued that discrimination was baked in from the start: her male colleague's starting pay was roughly in the 54th percentile of the salary range posted for the job at the time, while Selden was hired at the 15th percentile of the salary range in 2013.

The justices disagreed with that math, finding Selden started in the 32nd percentile of her posted salary range. More importantly, though, they found the college had valid nondiscriminatory reasons to start one worker higher in the salary band than the other. The male coworker had far more relevant experience in 1998 than Selden in 2013, and furthermore was hired at a time when there was high demand for programmers over fears of the Y2K bug.

More: Walmart settles Ottumwa worker's gender discrimination complaint for $60,000

Selden, conversely, was hired when the economy was still recovering from the 2008 Great Recession. Justice Edward Mansfield wrote for the court that "unrebutted" evidence showed market conditions were more favorable for programmers in 1998 than 2013, entitling DMACC to a favorable judgment on the pay discrimination claim.

As for retaliation, the court found that Selden, and several other rejected applicants, did not have the kind of degree specified by the job description for the supervisor position she wanted, while the man eventually hired for the role did. Selden argued that the retiring supervisor, also male, had also not had the requisite degree, but Mansfield wrote that DMACC showed the prior supervisor was grandfathered in, pursuant to college policy, when the degree requirement was adopted.

Selden 'devastated,' DMACC praises decision

Attorney David Albrecht, representing Selden, said in an email she was 'devastated' by the decision.

"She still works at DMACC and it was brave to fight for her civil rights while still providing a high level of service to the students, staff and faculty," Albrecht said. "She’s grateful to the eight members of her jury who listened through two weeks of evidence and unanimously agreed that DMACC broke the law."

DMACC President Rob Denson told the Register the college strives to be fair and equitable and appreciated the court's ruling.

"To have our process affirmed like this, as a public entity, we want to do the right thing," he said. "We try real hard to do so."

Recently: Her husband, in same Iowa state job, had been paid much more. So she sued ― and won.

Selden has filed a second lawsuit against DMACC for refusing to adjust her pay while the first case was pending on appeal. Albrecht and Denson both said no decisions have been made yet about what's next for that case.

Court doesn't address additional arguments

Because the court found Selden failed to prove her case on either claim, it did not address several other arguments from the party. In particular, it did not rule on DMACC's argument that Selden's damages, if any, should be calculated only based on the disparity in her pay over the 300 days prior to her filing her civil rights complaint, as opposed to over the entire course of her employment.

That question, closely watched by other Iowa unemployment lawyers, will rise again in another case currently pending on appeal, brought by a retired Iowa State University professor. The answer could have big implications for pay discrimination cases, which often involve claims of years if not decades of disparate compensation.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court sides with DMACC in sex discrimination lawsuit