Case: Rudebusch v. State of Arizona

On June 30, 1995, a group of male professors filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 against the State of Arizona in United States District Court of the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the Court for declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief alleging that the Northern Arizona University's President's decision to create an unequal pay scale favoring minorities violated the plaintiffs' rights to equal protection. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the policy was not justifiable as no previous discrimination had occurred in hiring of the University's professors.

The litigation was sparked when Northern Arizona University's President, Dr. Eugene Hughes, tried to rectify an imbalance in the composition of the University's professors by adding increased financial incentives for minorities, either racial or gender. A white male professor at the school, Rudebusch, objected along with a group of female and non-minority males. This group, including Rudebusch, filed suit. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 436 F.Supp.2d 1058 (D. Ariz. 2006).

On September 30, 1996, the Court (Judge Broomfield) certified the case as a class action. Meanwhile, the group of non-minority males also filed suit. On November 1, 1996 the two cases were consolidated. After a lengthy discovery period, the case went to trial.

On December 18, 2000, the jury reached its verdict, finding in favor of the defendant on all three claims: equal protection race, equal protection gender, and Title VII civil rights.

Thus, on December 29, 2000, the Court (Judge Broomfield) dismissed the case. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Circuit Court.

On December 9, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The Court held that certain aspects of the litigation had not been properly addressed, and thus, could not affirm summary judgment on all claims. The Court held that Hughes had immunity, but that the issue over the effects of the money still needed to be resolved. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 313 F.3d 525 (9th Circuit. 2002). The Court remanded for a determination whether certain Defendants could have been held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 436 F.Supp.2d 1059 (D. Ariz. 2006).

At a pre-trial conference on December 19, 2003, the parties stipulated to a bench trial of the remaining issue of Title IV liability and that if liability was found, to additional discovery as to damages. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 436 F.Supp.2d 1059 (D. Ariz. 2006).

On June 30, 2004, the Court (Judge Broomfield) issued its findings that liability for the defendants' violation of Title VII had been established. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 436 F.Supp.2d 1059 (D. Ariz. 2006). Then there was a long period of discovery relating to money involved, as both sides had to bring in experts to properly predict the expected values of salaries.

On June 7, 2006, the Court (Judge Broomfield) denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and in part granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment. The Court wanted hard evidence of what the statistical rates of salary increase, and neither side provided adequate information in that regard. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 436 F.Supp.2d 1069 (D. Ariz. 2006).

On August 14, 2006, the Court (Judge Broomfield) ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment of the statistics of pay scale increase. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 2355257 WL 2 (D.C.A.Z. 2006).

On February 23, 2007, the Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were awarded damages as outlined in the document.

On September 21, 2007, the Court (Judge Broomfield) ruled on the attorney's fees. The Court awarded less than the plaintiffs had asked for. Rudebusch v. Arizona, 2774482 WL 14 (D.C.A.Z. 2007). This was the last action of the case, as the docket was closed that same day.