IBJNews

Female engineers appeal discrimination ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two female engineers who pursued a gender-discrimination case against Rolls-Royce Corp. over the past four years intend to appeal a judge's decision in the company's favor.

Attorneys for Sally Randall and Rona Pepmeier filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 20, about a month after U.S. District Judge Sara Evans Barker ruled against them in the case. In March, Barker denied the women's request for class-action status on their claims of unequal pay.

Randall and Pepmeier's attorney, Sandra Blevins of Betz & Associates, could not be reached for comment.

Randall, director of quality systems and assurance for Rolls-Royce North America, has been with the company since it was Detroit Diesel Allison and holds a master's degree in thermal science, according to Barker's Sept. 22 ruling. Pepmeier, who holds a master's degree in industrial engineering, is a continuous-improvement consultant and previously held the title of operations director.

The two filed suit May 26, 2006, after separate incidents of perceived discrimination. Randall was passed over for promotions to chief engineer and vice president. Pepmeier and several of her male colleagues were demoted in a company re-organization, and she also was denied access to a performance-based bonus program.

The women tried to show a pattern of pay discrimination, but Barker ruled that their expert's statistical analysis failed to show a gender-based disparity. “Further, plaintiff's expert conspicuously failed to include all the relevant factors affecting the amount of compensation paid to Rolls-Royce management employees, including Randall and Pepmeier.”

Barker ruled in favor of Rolls-Royce on the women's individual claims because their jobs weren't exactly like those of their male colleagues.

Only two of Randall's male colleagues worked in the same unit and were at her same salary grade from 2003 to 2007, and she earned more than one of them. Randall's male counterpart who out-earned her did so by $55 for a total salary of $143,220. This was according to a pay chart submitted by the plaintiffs, Barker noted in her order.

Although Pepmeier's pay was consistently at the low end of the salary range compared with her male counterparts, each manager was responsible for different products, overseeing different-size budgets and different numbers of employees. In addition, Barker noted that each of the men had worked for Rolls-Royce at least 10 years longer than Pepmeier.

Pepmeier had filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August 2005, following an internal investigation of an incident where former Chief Operating Officer Steve Dwyer dressed her down over performance issues. Pepmeier believed her subsequent exclusion from the performance-based bonus program was retaliation for her complaints, but Barker ruled there was no evidence to show that individual decision-makers knew of her complaints, or that her exclusion was gender-based.

Tony Prather, the Barnes and Thornburg attorney representing Rolls-Royce, said he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. A company spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment late Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A bad name for all
    I have no doubt that gender discrimination could still exist to varied degrees at all levels of a company. However, it is due to frivalous, greedy women like this that the mainstream employees must put up with the overbearing policies enacted by corporate HR to protect the company from these ridiculous lawsuits. Way to go ladies, more money on your lawsuit means less pay for all.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT