A federal workplace civil rights agency and GW are going head-to-head in court, filing opposing motions to request a District Court judge to rule in their favor on a six-year battle over a pay bias case in the athletics department.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked a judge to throw out GW’s denial of sex-based employment discrimination allegations last week after the University refuted the claims in a dueling November motion. The motions reignited an ongoing legal clash between GW and the EEOC, who filed a complaint on behalf of former executive assistant to the athletics director Sara Williams in 2017, alleging GW violated the Equal Pay Act and Title VII – a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination – by paying “special assistant” Michael Aresco nearly double Williams’ salary for “substantially equal” work.
Here’s a timeline of the litigation between the University and the EEOC:
2017: The EEOC files a civil complaint against GW
Williams filed a charge of sex-based discrimination to the EEOC in October 2016 to report officials’ conduct after they allegedly failed to address her complaints she reported directly to them.
After a six-monthslong investigation into the allegations, the commission sent a letter to GW in April 2017, notifying the University that its examination found “reasonable cause to believe” GW violated the Equal Pay Act and requesting informal discussions to “eliminate” discriminatory practice and provide appropriate relief.
The next month, the University asked the commission to reconsider and requested more specifics from the EEOC about the evidence referenced in the letter. The commission denied GW’s request 11 days later.
In July 2017, the EEOC said they were unable to come to an “acceptable” agreement with the commission, sparking the lawsuit just a few months later.
In their first September 2017 filing in D.C.’s District Court, the EEOC alleged the athletics department, under the leadership of then-Athletic Director Patrick Nero, hired Williams in 2014, offering to pay her roughly $39,000 a year to provide “high-level” administrative support. The 2017 EEOC complaint alleges Nero hired Aresco in January 2016 to do similar work in a “special assistant” position he created for him two years later, offering him a salary of $77,000 while “dissuading” Williams from applying to the position.
“Nero’s favorable treatment of Aresco was part of his pattern of using power granted to him by Defendant to gain access, and provide preferential treatment to males,” the 2017 EEOC complaint states.
In the complaint, the commission requested a jury trial and called on the University to cease unequal treatment based on sex and pay “appropriate” sums to compensate for back wages, lost benefits and nonpecuniary damages like its “malicious and reckless” conduct toward Williams.
The University fired back in November 2017, requesting that District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly dismiss the commission’s complaint.
In their motion to dismiss, the University denied all forms of discrimination and argued the crux of the EEOC’s “deeply flawed” claims was based on a “broad” and “meaningless” characterization of the special assistant and executive assistant positions.
GW’s legal defense alleges the commission’s claim that Nero did not hire Williams for the special assistant job because of her gender was also baseless because she never formally applied to Aresco’s job.
The EEOC filed a memorandum against the University’s motion to dismiss later that month. The commission argued GW neglected to address how Nero treated Aresco “more favorably” than Williams during and after his hiring.
Nero granted Aresco subsequent pay raises and “promotional opportunities” after hiring him in 2016, while subjecting Williams to “personal errands,” the 2017 memorandum alleges. Nero requested Williams go to his home to oversee a Comcast installation, as well as pick up coffee, prescriptions and clothing from the dry cleaners, a 2022 EEOC filing alleges.
“Such sex-based preferential treatment included, but was not limited to, requiring Williams to train Aresco and to perform his job duties, thus enhancing Aresco’s importance and future employment opportunities, and to cover for him when he did not or could not perform his job,” the EEOC’s memorandum of opposition states.
In December, the University’s legal defense claimed the commission’s allegations about Williams’ “less favorable” job duties prove that her and Aresco’s job responsibilities were different in GW’s response to the EEOC’s opposition.
GW accused the EEOC of a “hide the ball” approach to their allegations, citing that the commission denied a GW FOIA request seeking more details about the grounds of the EEOC’s allegations.
“The Commission has failed to take a firm position on the central issue under the Equal Pay Act – Williams’ and Aresco’s core duties,” the GW reply states.
Nero resigned three days after the University’s response, marking the end of his seven-year stint in the position.
2019: District Court judge scraps GW’s motion to dismiss
In May 2019, the judge threw out GW’s motion to dismiss. The judge said while the EEOC didn’t provide much evidence – like a concrete confirmation that officials’ conduct was rooted in sex-based discrimination – the commission’s claims satisfy the Court’s “low pleading threshold.”
“The changes in Ms. Williams’ assignments — to include running personal errands — did not stand alone,” Kollar-Kotelly said in the memorandum. “They were part of a course of preferential treatment that plausibly inflicted tangible harm.”
Kollar-Kotelly said to “survive” the lawsuit’s next step of summary judgment, the EEOC should provide further evidence of the University’s conduct stemming from sex discrimination.
Later that year, the two parties became embroiled in a yearlong standoff over the secrecy of certain evidence brought forth in the lawsuit. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey ruled in June 2020 that GW couldn’t withhold documents based on evidence and that some exhibits be destroyed while others be preserved in November 2020.
2022: Parties file summary judgments with dueling claims
The lawsuit went quiet during the next two years until GW submitted a motion for summary judgment in opposition to the EEOC’s allegations in November 2022, again denying the discrimination claims and defending Aresco’s pay.
GW claimed Aresco was the only applicant for the special assistant job, which was advertised internally for three days starting on Jan. 4, 2016. The University justified his selection because of his education and experience as the assistant athletics director in the department at the time. Then-Senior Associate Athletics Director Tanya Vogel interviewed Aresco when the posting closed and determined he would be a good fit for the job, according to GW’s motion.
“In Nero’s view, Williams would not have met the minimum qualifications for the position even if she had applied because she did not have two or more years of relevant professional experience,” the motion states.
In its opposing summary judgment filed last week, the EEOC denied those statements and doubled down on their allegations of discrimination. The commission alleges that months before Aresco officially filled the position, Nero had already “preselected” him to fill the role, telling senior officials Aresco would transition to a new position in administration as early as August 2015.
Human Resources Manager Brian Kohn told Williams that Nero made the posting to make the process “seem” fair and transparent, and Aresco would be selected, according to the EEOC’s motion. University policy required Vogel to interview at least three candidates and Human Resources Partner Kaithlyn Kayer encouraged her to interview at least one other than Aresco, but Vogel did not, the EEOC’s motion states.
The motion states Aresco, Vogel and Kohn “made it clear” it would be “futile” for Williams to apply for the role.
“EEOC has established Defendant’s liability under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and that Defendant cannot prove its asserted defenses,” the EEOC’s summary judgment states.
The two parties’ dueling motions are pending until Kollar-Kotelly makes a judgment on the ongoing case.
