| |
 Court rejects Stanley's suit Most disputed issue avoided in 1993 sex-discrimination suit
Posted: Thursday June 03, 1999 12:04 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Southern California was entitled to pay its men's basketball coach at least $54,000 more than women's coach Marianne Stanley because he had more experience in coaching and marketing, a federal appeals court ruled. Wednesday's long-awaited decision, in a case argued in October 1996, sidestepped the most hotly disputed issue in Stanley's suit: whether the higher revenue, greater publicity and resulting increased pressure to win in a men's program justified a higher salary. Stanley, now the women's coach at California-Berkeley, contended those disparities reflected the university's discriminatory treatment of the women's program. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission backed her request for a trial of the suit. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, said it wasn't necessary to decide whether the job duties of the men's coach were more demanding, because the evidence showed that former USC's men's coach, George Raveling, was more experienced and qualified than Stanley. Raveling, according to published reports, was paid between $130,000 and $150,000 in 1993, when Stanley rejected the university's offer of a one-year contract for $96,000 -- a $26,000 raise. When USC hired him away from Iowa, Raveling had 31 years of coaching experience, had coached the men's U.S. Olympic team, had twice been named national coach of the year, had written books on basketball and had nine years of marketing and promotional experience, the court said. Stanley had been a coach for 14 years and had none of Raveling's other credentials, the court said. The "markedly different levels of experience and qualifications" were an adequate nondiscriminatory reason for the difference in pay, said Chief Judge Procter Hug. Dissenting Judge Harry Pregerson said the ruling overlooked abundant evidence of sex discrimination that should have gone to a jury. "The university's half-hearted promotion of the women's basketball program, its intensive marketing of the men's basketball program, and the formidable obstacles Stanley faced as a woman athlete in a male-dominated profession contributed to this disparate treatment," he said. Stanley's lawyer, Robert L. Bell, said he would ask the full court for a rehearing. "She has less experience but has produced winning programs with less resources than Raveling had," Bell said, citing Stanley's three national championships as a coach at Old Dominion. She also played on two national championship teams at Immaculate College. "It's like saying that the woman's experience doesn't count as much as the man's experience." J. Al Latham, lawyer for USC and its athletic director, Mike Garrett, said the ruling was a particular vindication for Garrett, a former football star at USC and in the NFL. Stanley's first four-year contract expired after the 1992-93 season, when she made $70,000 in salary and housing allowances. She sought a contract equal to that of Raveling, whose teams had been less successful than hers. Garret offered her a three-year contract starting at $88,000 or a one-year deal for $96,000, but Stanley said she wanted a three-year contract that would bring her up to Raveling's level. When Garrett refused, Stanley sued him and the university for $8 million. The appeals court refused to reinstate her in a 1994 ruling. Stanley was unable to get a coaching job for more than two years, and eventually was hired as promotions director and later co-head coach at Stanford before landing the Berkeley job in 1996. Wednesday's ruling upheld U.S. District Judge John Davies' dismissal of Stanley's suit without a trial.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
