University of Washington Sued for Back Pay—Again

In the wake of its recent settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by full-time faculty for back pay, the University of Washington has found itself sued once again—this time, by part-time lecturer Susan Helf, who teaches in the Department of Management and Organization at the university’s business school. Helf’s suit is based on a breach of contract claim arising from the university’s alleged failure to adhere to the merit-pay provisions of the Faculty Code, and seeks to recover for the university’s part-timers approximately five years’ back pay. Although the exact amount of the claim cannot be established until the case is certified as a class action and the number of class members determined, Helf’s attorney, Rick Gautschi, told the Adjunct Advocate in an email that “…I think it’s safe to say that the figure is somewhere in the seven-figure range.” (According to Peterson’s Four Year Colleges 2006, the University of Washington employs 609 adjunct faculty, or 18 percent of its total faculty.)

Back pay litigation against the university began in 2004, with the filing of Storti v. University of Washington, in which full-time faculty sought the recovery of merit increases owed under the terms of the Faculty Code. In March 2006, the parties settled that suit for $17.5 million, at which time Helf, concerned that language in the settlement agreement might preclude her suit on behalf of part-timers, attempted to intervene as a party. Averring that Helf was not a member of the class, the court denied the motion to intervene. Helf then filed a complaint in King County Superior Court, in Seattle.

Helf, who holds a B.A. (magna cum laude) and J.D. from the University of Minnesota, has taught at the business school for 12 consecutive years, specializing in such areas as First Amendment law, corporate ethics, and individual rights under the U.S. Constitution. At issue in her case is whether the Faculty Code requires the university to give part-time lecturers annual merit increases.

That alleged obligation is set forth in Section 24.57 of the Code (which may be viewed on the Web at http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/handbook/Volume2.html,Section 24.57), which provides that “[a] faculty member who is deemed to be meritorious in performance shall be awarded a regular 2% merit salary increase at the beginning of the following academic year.” Section 21.31 of the Code defines faculty as including lecturers, “whether part-time or full-time.” Sections 24.57(C) and 24.53 also detail the procedures for evaluating lecturers’ performance and voting on the renewal or non-renewal of their appointments.

Speaking on behalf of the university, Norm Arkans, Executive Director of Media Relations and Communications at the university, has repeatedly asserted the university’s argument that the merit-pay provision does not apply to part-time lecturers. The May 20, 2006 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quoted Arkans as saying that part-timers were not due merit increases because “[t]he circumstances and the nature of part-time faculty appointments are different from the regular tenure track faculty appointments….”

In talking with the Adjunct Advocate, Arkans reiterated this position, but also cautioned that it “doesn’t mean [part-time faculty] don’t get reviewed.” Rather, he said, the university’s position is that the Code does not impose on full- and part-time faculty the same requirement of an annual merit review. As to the question of whether the annual renewal process for lecturer appointments constitutes an annual merit review, Arkans replied that this was for the courts to decide.

In an interview with the Adjunct Advocate, Rick Gautschi countered the university’s argument by citing the inclusion of part-time lecturers in the Code’s definition of “faculty,” and by stressing the logical inferences to be drawn from the sections relating to the review of lecturers’ performance and the renewal of their appointments. For example, if a lecturer’s contract has been renewed, it is reasonable to conclude, argued Gautschi, that the renewal was based on a finding of meritorious performance, thereby triggering the 2 percent pay increase provided for in Section 24.57 of the Code. “The applicable [Code] provisions point in the direction we’re arguing,” he said.
Gautschi also noted that the Code obligates the university to inform a faculty member of his or her unmeritorious performance. (The footnote to Section 24.57 of the Code reads: “Any faculty member whose performance is not deemed meritorious shall be informed by the Chair/Dean of the reasons. If deemed meritorious in the next year’s review, the faculty member shall receive a regular 2% merit increase at the beginning of the following academic year.”) During the 12 years that Helf has taught at the university, observed Gautschi, she has never been informed that her performance was unmeritorious. Rather, her annual contract has been renewed without a hitch.

Predicting the likely outcome of Helf’s suit is difficult at this early stage. The only certainty is that the court’s decision will hinge on the interpretation of the Faculty Code, which Gautschi is confident supports his client’s claim. “Read the Code,” he said. “Just read the Code.”