Lawsuit: Lee’s Summit discriminated against female principals by paying men more
Five Lee’s Summit school administrators, all women over 40, filed a discrimination lawsuit against the district, claiming they were paid less than men who had less experience.
In the suit, the five women accuse the district of paying younger, new hires with less or equal experience more than older district veterans for the same or similar job.
In a statement to The Star, district spokeswoman Katy Bergen said, “The district does not comment on pending litigation but we look forward to addressing this case through the legal process.”
The lawsuit was filed June 5 in Jackson County Circuit Court on behalf of Principals Heather Kenney, Jodi Mallette and Beth Ratty and Assistant Principals Brooke Morehead and Stacy Orf. It comes nearly a year after they had filed charges last August with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights alleging discriminatory pay practices by the district.
Their lawsuit says that while those charges were pending, the district offered 10 other female administrators pay increases “to address the fact that similarly situated males were paid substantially more.” The five women who filed the complaint with the state were not included in the pay boost, an action of retaliation the suit says.
“The district discriminated against plaintiffs with respect to terms, conditions and compensation because of their sex by paying male employees more, allowing male employees preferential placement or to negotiate placement on the salary schedule, crediting male employees with broader prior service credit than female employees and disregarding education of female employees,” the suit says.
And the suit says that newly hired male administrators without a doctorate were paid more than female administrators with doctorates.
The suit also accuses Lee’s Summit of age discrimination, saying the district granted credit for years of service to new hires but has not given similar credit to existing employees, resulting in older, veteran employees being “paid at a disparate rate.”
According to the suit, the women had complained to the district about discrimination in pay more than a year before they filed human rights charges, and the district’s attorneys conducted an investigation.
“The district’s counsel ‘substantiated’ the allegation that male elementary principals are paid a higher salary than female elementary principals with similar or more experience,” the suit says.
And on June 7, 2019, the district concluded that despite evidence of pay disparity related to gender and age, the differences did not amount to a violation of policy. The women appealed the decision to then-Superintendent Dennis Carpenter.
According to the suit, Carpenter said the difference in pay was because “the new hires were permitted to negotiate their pay and step placement, whereas current employees and employees promoted from within have no procedure to negotiate pay or step placement.” And it said that even though the practice “benefited, younger external hires and male external hires,” Carpenter concluded that ”gender did not play any role in these decisions.”
The suit said the district response is part of a pattern where it uses “its own counsel to conduct the investigations and then confirms the allegations, yet concludes that such conduct is not unlawful. “
In addition to an unspecified payment for damages, the principals, in their lawsuit, ask the court to make the district admit to discrimination and implement guidelines “ensuring consistent and non-discriminatory application” of its salary schedule.
They also ask for pay raises going back to 2017 and additional pension benefits that would come with the higher salaries. And they asked that the district pay their attorneys’ fees.
