University of Denver May Have to Pay Female Faculty for Paying Them Less Than The Men

The University of Denver could face significant financial liability after federal findings indicated that female faculty at its law school may have been paid less than male colleagues for decades. In August 2016, the EEOC notified the university that an investigation uncovered evidence of a gender-based pay disparity, possibly dating back to 1973. According to the agency, the institution allegedly took no meaningful steps to correct the imbalance, effectively condoning and standardizing pay inequity based on sex.

How the Case Began

The investigation originated from a complaint filed by Professor Lucy Marsh, who alleged unequal compensation within the law faculty. Prior to the EEOC notice, the university reported that in 2014 it had retained a compensation consultant to conduct a detailed internal analysis of faculty salaries and hiring structures. The consultant’s findings concluded that gender was not a factor in pay determination an assessment that appears to conflict with the federal agency’s preliminary evidence.

What This Means for Female Faculty

If the allegations are confirmed, affected faculty members may be entitled to remedies under federal and state equal pay and anti-discrimination frameworks. Unlike standard perception-based disputes, EEOC investigations rely heavily on employer payroll data, hiring timelines, contract structures, and comparative benchmarking.

If a wage disparity lacks a legally valid justification such as differences in seniority, workload, publishing contributions, course load, or administrative leadership duties it may be deemed unlawful even when third-party consultants had previously cleared the employer internally.

Why This Matters Beyond Denver

Wage equity remains a national workplace issue, especially in academia, finance, legal firms, healthcare, and corporate leadership pipelines. Employers, including government and private federal contractors, must ensure policies meet enforceability and fairness standards. Even arbitration waivers or independent consultant reports cannot override statutory equal pay obligations.

Many discrimination settlements historically underperform because organizations rely on:

• Vague salary benchmarking
• Subjective committee-based compensation approvals
• Lack of structured pay transparency
• Informal leadership pipeline gatekeeping
• Failure to update outdated pay policy frameworks

What Employers Should Be Doing Right Now

Schools and employers navigating similar exposure should implement:
✔ Transparent compensation frameworks
✔ Regular pay gap audits based on objective, role-by-role comparison
✔ Contract compliance review free from gender influence
✔ Documented salary benchmarking revisions
✔ Faculty and manager training that includes clear legal justification frameworks

Conclusion

The Denver case signals a broader compliance warning for employers, academic institutions, and federal contractors alike:
Independent consultant opinions do not replace Equal Pay obligations, and arbitration clauses cannot eliminate core statutory rights.

If you believe you have faced discrimination in hiring, salary decisions, retaliation, contract waivers, or workplace policy enforcement, early legal strategy protects your options.

For questions about this and possible implications for you, contact our office to speak with an attorney.