IBJNews

Professor sues IU medical school for gender discrimination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A physiology professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine filed a scathing gender-discrimination lawsuit this month, accusing the school of paying her significantly less than male counterparts with less experience.

Subah Packer, 57, wants IU to compensate her for loss of past and future income, and pay her attorneys’ fees. She has worked for IU since 1986 and has been a tenured associate professor of clinical and integrative physiology since 2001.

Since then, Packer alleges, her department has hired five less-experienced professors, all male, and paid four of them substantially more than Packer. Her complaint lists her salary as $74,600, compared to starting salaries of roughly $92,000 for three of the newer hires, as well as $82,000 and $72,000 for the other two.

Packer also alleges that her salary is below the median of the physiology department, which includes 19 tenured or tenure-track professors, even though her teaching load was greater and she had less laboratory space for conducting research. Many of the professors in the department are paid more than $100,000 annually.

“The environment for women faculty members at [the university] has not been good,” Packer’s lawsuit states, adding that IU’s “programs to increase retention and promotion of women are a facade.”

Packer first complained about her salary formally in 2003 by filing a grievance. She withdrew that complaint in hopes that a new chairman of the physiology department would improve her circumstances.

But things only got worse, Packer alleges. In 2004, the new department chairman, Michael Sturek, allegedly “took away” Packer’s lab space and her office space while at the same time assigning her even more teaching duties. Packer said her research output dropped off as a result.

In 2006 and 2007, Sturek gave Packer negative reviews, specifically citing her lower productivity in research. His reviews triggered a formal “review & enhancement” proceeding by the university. Packer survived that process but says she continues to face "retaliation" from Sturek and other IU officials.

In 2009, Packer won the national educator of the year award from the American Physiological Society. During that year, IU had frozen faculty salaries. But even after IU President Michael McRobbie approved salary increases for all IU faculty in 2010, Sturek still did not give one to Packer, her lawsuit alleges. She says her pay has been frozen since 2005.

“Dr. Packer expressed concern for the unlawful discrimination to which she was being subjected and, in response, [IU] intensified the mistreatment of her,” wrote Packer’s attorney John Ittenbach in the lawsuit. “Dr. Packer was badgered, ignored, isolated, and humiliated.”

Packer eventually filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which declined to investigate. She filed her lawsuit Jan. 4 in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.

"They’ve put me in a position where I’ve had no choice," Packer said in an interview. "I want to see a constructive outcome from IU from this. I want to see IU be a better place because I’m fighting for this."

Mary Hardin, a spokeswoman for the IU medical school, said the school would not comment on the lawsuit.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Difference in Pay
    Also John, another important point is that getting less pay because of gender discrimination is different than just getting less pay.
  • Good for Her
    The point John is that she's getting paid less than equally qualified or less qualified people in the department. Is it because she's doing less good quality research? Hard to tell if it is true her laboratory was taken away and she was given a lot more teaching in her schedule. I doubt this professor has any ulterior motives for pushing this suit. So you have to wonder where the truth lies.
  • Below the Median
    So let me get this straight...she some people make more...but some people still make LESS than her. So she makes MORE than others in the department. What about those people. It is called LIFE. There will always be people that make more than you. And you will always make more than someone else. Out of the 19 peoplein the department...it sounds like she was making less than the median but it didn't say she was paid the least.
    • Settle This One
      Suggestion: Settle this mess out of court. This suit has disaster written all over it.

    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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT