Margaret Spaulding, and James Bush, Intervenors-Appellants v. University of Washington

Appellants are past and present members of the faculty of the University of Washington School of Nursing (the nursing faculty). One of them, Ruth Fine, has served as an associate administrator of the University’s hospital, as the director of nursing services, and as an associate professor. The intervenors, also past and present members of the nursing faculty, join in this appeal.

The nursing faculty filed suit in the district court alleging that the University engaged in discriminatory compensation practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the Equal Pay Act, and Title VII. The district court sua sponte referred the case to a United States Magistrate sitting as a special master. After the nursing faculty presented its case, the special master issued a report recommending dismissal of the action pursuant to rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the motion for an involuntary dismissal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The nursing faculty argues that the district court erred in not reviewing the special master’s findings de novo, that we must consequently engage in de novo review, and that the district court erred in…

specially concurring.

I agree with the majority that the plaintiffs in this case did not prove any violation of the Equal Pay Act because they failed to show that their jobs were substantially equal to the comparator jobs used. Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir.1979), aff'd, 452 U.S. 161 , 101 S.Ct. 2242 , 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). For the same reason, their Title VII claim based on alleged unequal pay must fail. Id.

I also agree that plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of Title VII on disparate treatment grounds. They made no prima facie showing that any university action was based upon an unlawfully discriminatory criterion. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358 , 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1866 , 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977); Lynn v. Regents of the University of California, 656 F.2d 1337, 1340-41 (9th Cir.1981); Hagans v. Andrus, 651 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1981). Although plaintiffs established a discriminatory attitude on the part of one official of the University, through evidence of disparaging comments by the Vice President of the Health Sciences Center, the animus remained ephemeral. There was no connection between his attitude…

740 F.2d 686 35 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 217 , 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 1335, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,496 , 19 Ed. Law Rep. 92 Margaret SPAULDING, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and James Bush, et al., Intervenors-Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 82-3038. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 1983. Decided July 3, 1984. Certiorari Denied Nov. 26, 1984. See 105 S.Ct. 511 . Richard S. White, Lish Whitson, Pauline V. Smetka, and Karen J. Vanderlaan, Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants. Sidney J. Strong, Halverson & Strong, Seattle, Wash., for intervenors-appellants. John J. Aslin, Richard Ottesen Prentke, Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, Seattle, Wash., Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., James B. Wilson, Jr., Elsa Kircher Cole, Asst. Attys. Gen., Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, Lorence L. Kessler, McGuiness & Williams, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Equal Employment Advisory Council. Dennis J. Alessi, Kansas City, Mo., for American Nurses' Assoc. Appeal from the United States…